The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts (1) 1 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not speak to the victim as stated in the facts charged, and the defendant merely told the victim C to require urgent expenses, such as the facts charged, and did not make the victim deliver it to C, and there was no intention of defraudation otherwise.

(2) As to the crime Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not deceiving the victim because the victim did not speak as the crime in this part, and there was no intention to acquire it otherwise.

(3) As to the crime Nos. 4 through 6 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not say that "the date on which permission to extract aggregate is scheduled" to the victim, and because the victim has an intent and ability to obtain permission to extract aggregate, there was no deception by the victim, and there was no intention to acquire by deception otherwise.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In the trial of the case, the ex officio prosecutor in accordance with the amendment of indictment, while maintaining the name of the crime and the applicable provisions of law in the trial, applied for the amendment of indictment as stated in the following "criminal facts". Since this court permitted it and the subject of the trial was changed, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the argument that the court below's assertion of mistake of facts 2 to 6 (the same as attached Table 1 to 5 of the court below) among the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. The following facts or circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the amount of damage in this case was transferred to G account in the name of the Defendant’s wife, and the said account was used by the Defendant, and ii) the Defendant was from 3 to 40.