The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain fraud with respect to the mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, the fraud of joint and several sureties for the victim D, and the fraud of the victim H.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, unless the Defendant is led to confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8651, Mar. 24, 2005). Whether the crime of fraud is established by acquiring property, such as the borrowed money, or pecuniary profits, such as bearing debt, should be determined at the time of the act, and the payment of the borrowed money, etc. cannot be punished as a crime of fraud on the ground that the Defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do1682 delivered on July 23, 1999, etc.). Meanwhile, the conviction ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant, and the same applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6659, May 10, 2012). B.

As to the fraud of joint and several guarantee against the victim D, the summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is that the defendant "the victim was on the date not later than January 2016," and "the vehicle of this case" is "the vehicle of this case"

In order to operate, the guarantor is required from the capital to the point of view.

It shall be deducted from the guarantor on the face of the guarantor only for a period of six months.

"...."