The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not pay money to the victim because the Defendant did not receive all the construction cost at the construction site at the time of borrowing the decision of the lower court and was detained for six months on July 2, 2012 for other cases and was under progress for six months.

In addition, the Defendant owned real estate Q and M in the name of his spouse at the time of borrowing the loan according to the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention to commit the crime of deception.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Reviewing the reasoning for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment on the ground of appeal ex officio, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul High Court on December 6, 2012 at the Seoul High Court to a three-year imprisonment and a four-year suspension of execution on the grounds of a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "person with a disability"), other than the previous criminal records on the first head as indicated in the judgment of the lower court (hereinafter referred to as "second-year criminal records"), and the instant crime was committed (hereinafter referred to as "second-year criminal records"), and the instant crime was committed committed before the day when the judgment of the previous criminal records became final and conclusive, and (2) the crime of the previous criminal records was committed after the day when the judgment of the previous

According to this, the crime of this case is ① the crime committed before the day when the judgment of the previous offense becomes final and conclusive, ② the crime of the previous offense was committed after the day when the judgment of the previous offense becomes final and conclusive, and the crime of this case was committed after the day when the judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the crime of this case could have been judged simultaneously at the same time with the crime of the previous offense, whereas the crime of the previous offense

Therefore, the court below held that the crime of this case was ①.