The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) of the Defendant’s deception is comprised of two parts of the grounds for appeal: (a) if the damaged party borrows money with the loan; (b) make the said money out of the joint and several sureties; and (c) to arrange the loan of the victim by obtaining the loan from other places.

In doing so, the lower court did not render any judgment on the second deception, but acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the first deception is not recognized.

On the other hand, with respect to the first deception, the defendant used the loan in order to pay his personal debts in addition to the hospital expenses and living expenses permitted by the victim of the loan in this case, and the intent of deception and deception is recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is indicated in the written indictment around July 27, 2015 as “ around July 2, 2015.” However, according to the loan agreement (Evidence Nos. 4), it appears to be a clerical error in the “round July 27, 2015.”

On the same day, the victim C, who was aware of insing out of singing out, stated that “I will get a loan at home, obtain a substitute loan from another loan company within 2-3 days from the week of the joint and several sureties, and will get a joint and several sureties,” and the defendant as the principal bond, was granted a loan of KRW 30 million in total from the loan of Nexe-sing singing out, call singing-out loan, LL nife loan, loan of KRW 10 million, respectively.

Defendant 1 received a loan from the victim as joint and several surety, and received demands from the victim to leave the joint and several surety, and Defendant 1 received the victim’s “no money” by telephone from the victim at the place of police officer in the middle of October 2015. Defendant 2 paid the money borrowed from KON SON-based, etc. with a loan granted under the name of four.