The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 2, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, Nos. 1 through 10 of the table of crime No. 2.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the victim D with the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the defendant will have the victim participate in the operation of the E branch with F and will work together with the above company while operating the E branch, and accordingly, he received KRW 100 million from the above company as operating expenses, and used it as operating expenses, but there is no intention to obtain by fraud as a result of the loss.

With respect to the victim F, the defendant was in charge of E's business activities, a partner company with the victim, and was paid the amount of money as stated in the judgment of the court below for business expenses from the victim in charge of raising funds, and was used for such purpose, and did not deceiving the

With respect to the victim N, the defendant was paid the money from the victim as the borrowed money or various expenses, and the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not lose it by mistake, and most of them used for actual purposes.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found a guilty of the facts charged is erroneous, and it is so unfair that the punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the table 1 to 10 of the crimes listed in the table 2 of the crimes listed in the table 2 of the crimes listed in the table 1 to 2 of the crimes listed in the table 2 of the crimes listed in the table 2 of the crimes listed in the table 1 to 14) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the nature of the crime is not good. Therefore, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. (1) The victim of the part concerning the assertion of mistake of facts (1) states that the defendant, who had consistently run a wholesale and retail company (hereinafter “E”) such as office supplies from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, has consistently heard the words as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment below, and has paid the money as stated in its reasoning. The above statements are consistent, concrete, and F’s investigative agency and part of the court’s statements are supported.