The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for two years from the date the above judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles constitutes not a loan but an F broadcasting station business investment amount, and thus, the Defendant does not have a duty to return it to the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of fraud is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or legal principles.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud as to the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, and rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of “determination on issues”.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by records and changes in the circumstances properly presented by the court below, the court below's judgment convicting the facts charged of this case is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the

subsection (b) of this section.

(1) On May 30, 2016, the victim is expected to repay the money that the defendant borrows from the victim in the course of questioning by the prosecutor's office.

The victim and H have made a detailed statement that they would have paid the full payment at the end of October while the defendant provided that he would pay the full payment of the borrowed money.

shall be repaid in November.

Han-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-trin

Han-do stated on the basis of ‘the fact';

H was present at the time that “the Defendant would have repaid the money borrowed from the victim even how to do so.”

It is always called as a bridge to make an investment as soon as the defendant India made an investment at the time of the examination of the confrontation.