Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant (1) The other party who borrowed each of the instant money from Defendant C is not the victim.

At the time of the instant case, the victim was aware of the Defendant’s credit standing.

In light of this, there is no deception against the victim.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant would have received repayment of the amount equivalent to KRW 40 million from other businesses of the Defendant, or would have received repayment of the principal and profits from the J and repaid each of the above loans.

However, due to the economic situation of other companies, not only did the above bonds have not been repaid, but also the principal of the investment money has not been repaid by J, and this is only a failure to pay the above loans.

Therefore, there is no intention to commit fraud against the accused.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the grounds that, in full view of the Defendant’s statement at the investigation stage [the Defendant’s statement at the time of each of the instant loans, the Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that the Defendant was not a person who lent money at the time of each of the instant loans, but was aware of the fact that he was another person who was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was not a person who lent money at the time of the instant loans, and that he was a 7 million won for the police interrogation protocol at the time of each of the instant loans) and the Defendant’s statement at the lower court at the time of the instant investigation.

(2) The circumstances cited in the lower court’s judgment, and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence of this case, are fully recognized, such as the Defendant’s deception, and the intent of the Defendant’s deception, fraud, etc. against the victim.

Therefore, it is true.