The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Whether the Defendant, as to the fraud of C, received investment money from C in relation to the J hotel business

No money is borrowed as a down payment for the sale and purchase of land located at Pyeongtaek-si AH (hereinafter referred to as "E land") owned by E.

2) The Defendant against F’s fraud is not to borrow from F the J hotel business transfer cost.

It is not to borrow money in the name of the cost of transferring the E land.

In addition, there was no intention to commit fraud because there was a capability to repay money from F when borrowing money from F.

3) Since the Defendant had the ability to repay the money from G at the time of borrowing the money from G, there was no intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant argued the same purport as the grounds for appeal as to the above part, and the court below rejected it. In light of the above judgment of the court below compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the judgment affected the conclusion of the judgment

subsection (b) of this section.

B. In the appellate trial, the Defendant made an effort to recover damage by additionally depositing KRW 120 million for the victim C, KRW 38 million for the victim F, and KRW 5 million for the victim G. The Defendant reached an agreement with the victim C and F, and the Defendant’s age and environment in full consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age and environment, is too unreasonable to maintain the sentence of the lower court.