The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation against the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. A. Around November 2010, the summary of the facts charged stated that “Around November 2010, the Defendant called the victim D to obtain the completion certificate of water supply construction works, which intends to undergo a completion inspection, by calling for the victim D and obtaining the completion certificate. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million, the Defendant completed the completion inspection and immediately received the loan as security, and would repay the building without molding it after the volume of the month.”

However, the Defendant had been in bad credit standing by issuing multiple cards at the time, and was liable to H for the debt amounting to KRW 30 million, KRW 80 million, KRW 170 million to Gwangju Bank, KRW 70 million to the National Bank, and KRW 70 million to the National Bank, and even if the building was already constructed, the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the loan amount to the victim by borrowing money from the bank as collateral.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of F, the Defendant’s wife around December 1, 2010.

B. The lower court determined that the lower court acknowledged the criminal intent of defraudation based on the evidence in its judgment.

C. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant has a criminal intent to acquire by deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion by the defendant is with merit.

1. The defendant's obligation to H was incurred on January 12, 201, as stated in the above facts charged, and the defendant's obligation to I was incurred on December 9, 2010.