The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s grounds of appeal (as to the convictions in the judgment of the court below) 1) In relation to the mistake of the facts and the fraud of borrowing funds in the name of a restaurant operation fund alleged by the misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant did not borrow such money from the injured party at the time of the instant facts charged, and even if the fact of borrowing the money from the snow was recognized, the Defendant

Therefore, in the judgment of the court below, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous or erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the reasoning of the prosecutor’s appeal (misunderstanding of the facts as to the acquittal portion in the judgment of the court below), with regard to the fraud of borrowing deposit under the name of the lease deposit (the fraud of KRW 30 million on November 18, 2009), the evidence of this case reveals that the period when the defendant borrowed the lease deposit from the damaged party is around November 2009, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the deposit. However, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the time of borrowing the lease deposit was around November 2008, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles and mistake of the facts by the defendant and the prosecutor

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and the legal doctrine, and the lower court, taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, held that the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant borrowed the money obtained by deception from the damaged person at the time of the day and around the day specified in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment, and that he/she may commit the crime of defraudation

The decision was determined.

In light of the above evidence, a thorough examination of the circumstances presented by the court below in light of the above evidence reveals that all the circumstances acknowledged by the court below are justified.