All the judgment below is reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by the second instance judgment for the crime of the first instance judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (i) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the third party judgment) did not deceiving the Victim P, and received the money from the Victim P and received the bill from Q issuance company as collateral, so it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the instant money.

The sentence of the judgment of the court below on the accused of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment for a year and June, the second instance: imprisonment for a period of eight months and the third instance: imprisonment for a period of six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The first lower judgment on the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Examining ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal (the second and third instances), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the Defendant filed an appeal by dissatisfactioning with the second and third original judgments. This court decided to consolidate each of the above appeals cases. Each of the crimes in the second and third instances in which the judgment on the second and third instances against the Defendant was rendered, and the offense in the judgment on the third and third instances in which the judgment on the first and third instances were concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, should be sentenced to a single punishment within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated

In this respect, the second and third judgments on the defendant cannot be maintained any longer.

(The crime of the judgment of the first instance court is not in the relation of concurrent crimes between the crime of the second instance judgment and the crime of the third instance judgment and the crime of the third instance judgment under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. According to the records of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the third instance judgment), the Defendant stated that the Defendant agreed to conduct the same business with Q Q’s representative director R, despite the absence of an agreement to conduct the same business with Q’s representative director, and ② the Defendant’s bill for the purpose of purchasing the factory site from Q Q.