All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning the fraud against the victim H) Defendant lent money from the victim H to G Care Center (hereinafter “instant medical care center”).

(2) After completing a construction project, the construction project was completed and then intending to obtain a loan from a financial institution as a collateral and repay the loan to the victim H. However, unlike the originally anticipated, the construction project was delayed and could not obtain a loan, thereby preventing the victim H from repaying the loan, and there was no intention to commit fraud. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) mistake of facts (not guilty part) and the statement made by the victim E investigation agency that conforms to the facts charged in this case is reliable, and the statement made by the court below in the court below is partially consistent with the statement made by the victim E, and the construction work for the medical care center in this case seems to have been infinite with the progress of the business due to the creditors’ provisional disposition, etc. As such, it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim E as stated in this part of the facts charged, and thus, it is unreasonable for

2. Determination

A. 1) In examining the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in light of the relevant legal principles and the principle of court-oriented trials, etc., when comprehensively considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the argument is concluded, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance unless there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s decision is remarkably unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). 2) In this case, the Defendant argued to the same effect as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court stated in detail its decision.