1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

3. Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,00,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) Of the instant facts charged, Defendant A 1 notified the victim H (hereinafter “victim”) of the purpose of “1. A” (the total amount of damage KRW 270 million) (1) of the instant facts charged, that the said Defendant was granted a loan by telephone to the victim H (hereinafter “victim”) by saying, “only, the victim was required to enter into a private contract for the J building at J at J at J at J at J.” However, the said money is insufficient and the other expenses are to be paid. There is a difference between the two months of the due date and the other expenses to be paid.” The Defendant provided that “The five additional interest will be paid every month.”

(2) At present, J buildings are sold in lots all floors other than three floors, and substantial profits are generated.

The above defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation because he did not repay the above borrowed money with the profits of J building.

(3) Even if the above defendant did not true the victim's use of the above loan, it does not constitute a crime of fraud merely because it is a case of loans under the civil law.

B) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 150 million from the part of “1.B” (the total amount of damage KRW 150 million) (10 million) to the effect that “the Defendant shall use the land of K for transfer registration and other expenses,” thereby notifying the victim of the purpose of using the loan amount of KRW 150 million. (b) The said Defendant: (c) was promised to preferentially repay the money of the victim upon the occurrence of the loan from K; (d) borrowed the said money from the victim after he was promised to preferentially repay the money of the victim; and (e) was aware that the loan was imminent at the time of the loan; and (c) there was no intention to commit fraud. Even if the said Defendant did not speak the above loan to the victim, this case is merely a case of a loan under the civil law, even if it was not true. (b) The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.