The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the case of Defendant 1’s mistake of fact [17 order 4086], the Defendant had the intent to repay the borrowed money with respect to the victim because, at the time of borrowing the money from the injured party, the Defendant had been paid the construction cost related to the business that the Defendant planned to receive at that time, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent to acquire the borrowed money from the

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the fact that the Defendant did not disclose the existence or scope of the Defendant’s claim for construction price at the time of borrowing money from the injured party as objective data, etc., and that there was no repayment of borrowed money to the injured party from the date of each of the crimes in this case until the lapse of approximately 2-3 years ago, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant received money from the injured party under the pretext of borrowing money and received money from the injured party for the purpose of borrowing money, so there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is without merit.

B. A favorable circumstance is that the defendant has agreed with the victim F to determine the unfair sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor, and the defendant shows an attitude against the defendant's wrong judgment in regard to this part of the crime.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case is highly poor and is particularly damaged by taking advantage of the trust relationship of the victims formed by the defendant after the recovery from the victims and taking advantage of the trust relationship of the victims.