The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the payment period of the loan in this case may be recognized as the fact that the date of payment is three to four months from the date of the loan, and the victim has filed an application for payment order against her husband E stated in the monetary consumption loan contract, whether the joint and several surety is important matters in the aggregate monetary consumption loan contract, because E is the husband of the defendant, and there was no need to confirm whether she is a genuine joint and several surety at the time of the loan contract issued to the victim, it is reasonable to view the part of the joint and several surety in the monetary consumption loan contract issued to the victim as the core letter of deception. The property held by the defendant was not able to liquidate in cash as real estate stocks, etc., and there was no additional principal to be repaid, such as not selling stocks held at the time.

Therefore, the court below which rendered a not guilty verdict on the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case even though it can be recognized as the criminal intent by deceitation of the defendant, has erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months, and one year of suspended execution) is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant would lend 10 million won to the victim H in the “J cafeteria” located in Ansan-si, Seosan-si on December 28, 201, and the principal shall be repaid within 3 and 4 months.

The G House will be provided as security, and the husband received monthly pay of KRW 9 million per month, and thus repayment is not Mad." The victim and the joint guarantor E received a forged monetary consumption lending contract from D and then delivered it again to the victim.

However, at the time of fact, the defendant's apartment in his own Ansan is worth approximately KRW 310,000,000,000 at Switzerland Bank.