The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to each fraud against victims C, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, which acquitted the Defendant, even though all the facts charged that the Defendant acquired the victim C’s money, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. On May 19, 2007, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) organized the number system of 20,000 won of the accounts closed on December 19, 2008 to the victim C in the “K” located in JJ; (b) the Defendant provided that, on December 19, 2008, the Defendant would pay the time limit including the interest of 200,000 won per month on December 19, 2008, which is the last order.

However, in fact, the Defendant was unable to provide the already operated number extension money, and the Defendant was trying to operate the system with a prompt term “defluence” after organizing a new number extension money and receiving the payment of the extension money. The Defendant also offered the last sequence to those other than the victim and offered the extension money to those other than the victim, so even if receiving the extension money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to provide the extension money properly on the date of promise.

The Defendant, from May 19, 2007 to November 19, 2008, received 19 million won each from the victim under the name of a deposit, and acquired 19 million won each from the victim under the name of a deposit account, from 19th day to 19th day each month.

B. As to the facts charged in this part of the judgment of the court below, the defendant and the defense counsel paid all the guidances that the victim should receive on October 19, 2008, on which the defendant would receive the guidance money.

However, there is a problem.