The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for six months, respectively.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) Of the money borrowed from the victim R of misunderstanding of facts, KRW 186,00,000 out of the money borrowed from the victim R of misunderstanding of facts, it was prevented from running the business as the O did not prepare KRW 5,30,000,000 which was agreed upon by theO to receive KRW 100,000 according to the agreement, and it was not paid to the victim U.S. because the fact or the project did not run properly, there was no criminal intent to acquire the money by deceiving the victims.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) thought that the project will be carried out well by the head of the AG District Headquarters of G G, which is a misunderstanding of facts, and there was no intention to commit fraud, since the project was conducted at the time of designing services and borrowed operating funds from the victim according to A’s direction

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence by the time of closing argument, maintaining the first instance court’s determination of the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination of the credibility of the statement made by the witness

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 Decided November 24, 2006, etc.). Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court. The lower court, considering that the lower court directly examined the witness and deemed the credibility of the witness, and based on other evidence duly adopted and examined in the statement, rejected Defendant’s assertion.