The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

With respect to the fraud of September 1, 2010 among the facts charged in the instant case by mistake of the gist of the grounds for appeal, when the defendant conspireds with E to make a loan to C as stated in this part of the facts charged, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired the money by deception of KRW 36 million under the pretext of the cost of promoting loan business.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged.

The sentence (7 million won) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below held that the defendant would directly lend 15 billion won to the defendant, taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined.

The court below rejected the credibility of the E’s statement to the effect that C’s statement or C’s statement to the effect that C transferred some of the 36 million won, which C transferred to E’s account, was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant acquired 36 million won from C in collusion with E without reasonable deliberation, even if all the other evidence submitted by the prosecutor were integrated.

D. The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows: ① E was aware of the possible loan of C at one’s office before preparing a loan agreement with C, and during that process, C and 2 talked about the loan of D and 50 million won, and it was J. However, it was notified to C through the Defendant, and it was delivered to the Defendant by receiving the letter of intent for the loan of the Promotion Savings Bank, but the Defendant was not involved in the process of receiving the letter of intent for the loan of the Promotion Savings Bank (633,634,642, etc. of trial record). In light of such purport of the statement, the Defendant introduced E and introduced it to C.