Of the guilty portion and the innocent portion of the judgment of the court below, the part of Article 5-2 of the sight of crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

3.2

1. According to the prosecutor’s appeal on the part of Articles 4 and 19 of the List of Offenses as indicated in the lower judgment, the prosecutor did not state the grounds for appeal as to the part of Articles 4 and 19 of the List of Offenses Act when submitting a petition of appeal on January 22, 2016, and found the fact that the reason for appeal as to the above part is not stated in the letter of appeal, which was withdrawn on February 19, 2016, and no other reason for ex officio examination as to this part is found.

Therefore, among the prosecutor's appeal, it is necessary to decide to dismiss the appeal regarding the part 4 and 19 of the crime sight table, but this part of the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed by decision, as long as the defendant's appeal and the remainder of the prosecutor's appeal are decided.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the misunderstanding of the legal principles did not deception the same as the criminal facts, and did not have the intention of deception.

2) Unreasonable sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles, the court below found the defendant guilty of each fraud described in paragraphs 3, 5-2, and 12-1 of the crime sight list, but the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The unfair sentencing sentence of the lower court is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

3. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s assertion by asserting the same purport in the lower court, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail in the column of “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

4. The prosecutor’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.