All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant did not have any intention to obtain money from the victim by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles.

In addition, since the victim is likely to deliver the check to the victim before February 13, 2009, the statute of limitations in this case was imposed.

(A) The defendant's defense counsel argues that the requirements for prosecution have been met, and the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense is judged as above). The sentence sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the following circumstances recognized by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the criminal intent of defraudation, the criminal intent is recognized as the criminal intent of defraudation by the defendant.

(1) In borrowing money from another person, if the other party has failed to comply with the true notice as to the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising the funds to be repaid, and if the other party has received money by notifying the other party of the fact contrary to the truth as to such purpose or method of raising the funds to be repaid, fraud is

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382 Decided September 15, 2005). The Defendant provided that “the Defendant would receive interest on the second part of a month in which money is invested from a person engaging in bond business” from the victim, thereby receiving KRW 100 million from the victim.

However, the defendant used the money in a different place without investing it in another person (the defendant invested a total of KRW 100 million in D and F, and the defendant stated in the investigative agency that replaced the money received from the victim with the money received from the victim). Ultimately, the defendant has preserved his claim with the money received from the victim.

b) the Commission;