The judgment below

The guilty part (including the acquittal part of the reason) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

(b).

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

As to the guilty part of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles, there is no fact that the defendant had been involved in the process of concluding the contract, and there was no intention of deceiving the victim.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one-month imprisonment and one 1 year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

With respect to each acquittal portion of 1, 2, and 3 at the time of the original judgment of the prosecutor's mistake of facts, according to evidence, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victims, and the defendant has the intention to commit the crime of fraud.

As to the non-guilty portion of 4 at the time of the original adjudication, since the defendant lent money to the victim for the purpose of borrowing differently from the actual purpose of the loan, the defendant is recognized as deceiving the victim.

The sentence imposed by the court below of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, F Co., Ltd., which was operated by the Defendant, was liable for the payment of 8 billion won or more to the customer around April 2016 and August 2016, and around February 2017 (see, e.g., a copy of the evidence No. 2018 high-class 14999). Around that time, 1.2 billion won loan applied to the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund was refused, and around March 2017, 2017, for reasons such as termination of a contract with other companies, it was recognized that the Defendant was not provided with the victim’s wages even after the lapse of 20 billion won (i.e., the original trial witness statement, 2018 high-class 11 of the evidence No. 14999, Nov. 1, 2017).

According to the above facts, the defendant entered into a supply contract and the victim of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment.