The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor;

A. When considering the consistent statements made by the victim that correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, while the Defendant’s statement is inconsistent, and it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement is inconsistent, all of the facts charged in the instant case is found guilty, the lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, acquitted the Defendant on the part that the Defendant acquired USD 16,80 and USD 15,268 on July 18, 2013. As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of two-month imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant was not engaged in the import business of precious metals, such as Montreal, and there was no regular import or property, and there was no ability or intent to repay the debt amounting to KRW 171,00,000, and even if Malaysia borrowed money from the injured party, it did not have any capacity or intent to repay the debt amounting to KRW 171,00,000. In particular, even though the number of the Defendant’s possession in the customs office of Malaysia was not seized and no more than 365, the Defendant called the victim in Malaysia E on July 12, 2013, and was subject to seizure without reporting to the customs office.

C. The Montreal is currently under the custody of the customs office, and it is possible to find out a gold spot only when taxes are paid.

2천만 원을 달러로 바꾸어 보내주면 그 돈으로 세금을 내고 다이 아몬드를 찾아와 그 중 일부를 나누어 주� 다” 라는 취지로 거짓말하여, 이에 속은 피해 자로부터 2013. 7. 18. 경 말레이시아 E에 있는 G 호텔 인근의 시티은행에서 다이 아몬드 회수를 위한 세금 납부금 용도 명목으로 말레이화 16,800 링 깃( 한화 6,000,000원 상당) 을, 같은 날 위 호텔 인근에 있는 상호 불상 환 전소에서 같은 명목으로 미화 15,268 달러( 한화 17,430,000원...