The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Prosecutor’s sentence (two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2) The lower court convicting Defendant (1) even though the Defendant did not obtain any property benefits due to the instant crime and did not bear any property benefits, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

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

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by both parties of the judgment ex officio, the public prosecutor applied for changes in indictments ex officio, and the public prosecutor applied for changes in indictments No. 1 and No. 2017 Highest 1402, the Highest 689, the Highest 2017 Highest 2017 Highest 1402, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is,

However, although there are reasons for reversal of authority above, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant, on December 1, 2015, by deceiving the staff in charge of the victim BNK Capital Co., Ltd., and received KRW 120 million in total of the vehicle loans from the said victim, by deceiving the victim E on November 1, 2015, by deceiving the victim E on December 1, 2015, the said victim caused the said victim to jointly and severally guarantee the Defendant’s obligation to lend the vehicle loans amounting to KRW 200 million in total. On July 201, 2016, the lower court, by deceiving the Victim G on July 1, 2016, as indicated in the list of crimes, can be recognized that the Defendant received KRW 135,326,980, excluding the three purchase funds for the vehicle loans out of the vehicle loans from the victim G, as indicated in the list of crimes.

The defendant acquired money and property benefits equivalent to the amount of joint and several sureties granted due to the above victims' disposal of the act.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. The court below's decision is erroneous.