The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

The judgment below

(2).

1. In a case where a defendant who made an ex officio determination of a compensation order among the judgment below files an appeal against a conviction, the compensation order shall be transferred to the appellate court along with the defendant's case pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, even if he does not object to the compensation order.

According to the provisions of Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, where the existence or scope of liability of the accused is unclear, no compensation order shall be issued, and in such cases, an application for compensation order shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the same Act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144, Aug. 30, 2012). According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the Defendant deposited part of the damage amount to B, an applicant for compensation, at the trial of the lower court, to the extent that the existence or scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation against the applicant for compensation is unclear. As such, the part of the compensation order against the applicant for compensation among the lower judgment cannot be maintained.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant made considerable efforts to realize the content under the E business plan by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the implementation of the project financing loan (hereinafter “PF loan”) was delayed due to the suspension of permission between the Gyeongbuk-do Office and the Korea Forest Service.

In addition, it is irrelevant to the fact that the lending of money to the defendant by the victim is due to the belief of the defendant's joint and several guarantee, the business plan, and the defendant's career, and it will be implemented within six months.

In other words, the defendant is not guilty of deceiving the victim, and there is no causal relationship between deception and disposal act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Unreasonable sentencing E.