The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although the Defendant did not use the money borrowed from the victims as entertainment costs, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that found this part of the facts charged as is, and thus, is unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant appealed on November 13, 2014 at the Busan District Court sentenced one year to imprisonment for fraud, etc., but the appeal was dismissed on June 26, 2015, and the appeal was lodged on August 3, 2015, but the above judgment became final and conclusive on the same day as the withdrawal of the Defendant’s appeal.

As above, the crime for which judgment has become final and the crime of fraud of this case are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment by taking into account equity and equity in cases where judgment is to be rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Since the application of the statutes of the judgment of the court below is omitted in the application of

B. However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant stated in the prosecutor's investigation that he used the funds borrowed from the victims to pay personal debts, or used the remaining amount of credit after drinking in the studal spons, etc. in the victims and marine transport units. According to this, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not justified, since it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant used the funds borrowed from the victims for entertainment costs.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the grounds of ex officio reversal is unreasonable.