The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. First of all, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in relation to G does not borrow money by deceiving G, even though the Defendant had no intention or ability to repay the money from the beginning, and in relation to G, in the case of the fraud part among the police officers on April 2010 in relation to G, the Defendant did not receive money under his name on the ground that it would use it as the cost of transfer in the name of the person in question. Next, in the case of the fraud part concerning M, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in this case, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below declared one year and two months of imprisonment against the defendant. The prosecutor asserts that the court below's punishment is too unjustifiable and unfair, and the defendant asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court in relation to G, the Defendant made confessions as to this part of the facts charged at the police and the prosecutor’s office, and there is no circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the confessions, and there is sufficient evidence to prove the voluntariness of the confessions, such as the victim G’s statement and a large number of disposal documents, and there is no new circumstance to reverse the confessions even after examining the witness T and U’s legal statement, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on

B. (i) The Defendant of this part of the facts charged is on February 10, 201, in a cafeteria with the trade name “L” in the K hotel located in the Busan Shipping Daegu J on February 10, 201, while the victim M leased and operated a live mine shooting range on the third underground of the N, the Defendant is on the part of E.