We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) In the first instance judgment, the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged by the first instance court did not have the intent to commit the crime by deceit, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant paid a considerable amount of principal or interest borrowed from the victim E; (b) the Defendant continued to pay interest for the repayment; and (c) the said victim was aware

② Of the facts charged by the first instance court, the fraud part against the victim L, H, J, and K was financed with money from the victims to “necessary money to operate a factory in Vietnam,” and thus, the Defendant’s establishment of a Vietnam factory on February 2, 2010, but it was impossible to operate it properly, and thus, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to commit fraud at the time of borrowing the said money.

③ From among the facts charged by the first instance court, the part of breach of trust and embezzlement was disposed of two “computer card post” provided by the Defendant as security for transfer to the victim M, and used the cost of supply of new products in the course of business for the victim P. However, when considering the objective situation at the time of the disposal of the said machinery and the use of the said supply price, there was no intent of the Defendant to commit breach of trust and embezzlement.

(2) Each of the first and second instances of sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) on the grounds that the grounds of unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court (three years and six months of imprisonment) by the Prosecutor is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the first and second court rendered a judgment ordering the Defendant to each sentence after having separately examined the Defendant, and the Defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgment of the lower court, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the first and the lower court decided to jointly examine the above appeal cases.