The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant, by mistake of fact, has already paid each of the loans 3 through 6 times a year in the list of crimes in the attached Form, before the victim filed a complaint, he did not have the intention to obtain the above loans by fraud.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s petition of appeal and the notice of receipt of the submission period of the written reason for appeal was served within 20 days from May 31, 2016, and the Defendant submitted within 20 days from June 1, 2016, did not include the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the national defense counsel filed a request for the appointment of the national defense counsel on November 15, 2016, after the expiration of the submission period of the written reason for appeal.

Although there is a assertion of misunderstanding the facts on the grounds of appeal on December 6, 2016, this is submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the written reasons for appeal, this does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal (ex officio, even if we examine ex officio), the defendant and his defense counsel led to the confession of all the facts charged, including No. 3 through No. 6 of the List of Crimes (the page of the trial record) at the original court, and the credibility of the confession is recognized, and each loan of No. 3 through No. 6 of the annexed Table No. 3 through No. 46 at the time the victim's police statement was made (Evidence No. 45, 46). However, the "I's loan No. 17,00,000,000" stated by the injured person on June 25, 2013, and the "No. 7,000,000 won (No. 6) and the victim appears to be the total annual amount No. 10,0080,280.

The statement (Evidence No. 46 pages) and the statement of loan transaction (Evidence No. 17 pages) on June 25, 2013 appears to have been fully satisfied until August 16, 2013, in light of the statement (Evidence No. 6) and the statement of loan transaction (Evidence No. 17 pages).

This is a series of 1 to 6 years each, which is related to a single comprehensive crime.