The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (not guilty part) The defendant is merely the physical color of the person who will take over the W lending building, and he did not have any plan or ability to take over the L lending.

Nevertheless, the defendant made an exaggeration to I as if he will take over LBD, which can be viewed as a deceptive act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant: (a) obtained I’s sense of view by stating that I will be able to purchase LB at a low price if I take over LB, while going through a travel with his family members around December 2009, when I had been in contact with I while working in the company “X”; and (b) I had been going to travel with his family members in Jeju-do; and (c) I would be able to purchase LB at a low price.

On January 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “A mobile phone fee has been in arrears and has been interrupted in the LBD’s receipt business. A mobile phone fee may be paid instead of the mobile phone fee, so that LBD would be repaid immediately if LBD acceptance is well-grounded.”

However, the Defendant had no special property at the time, and was in bad credit standing. In particular, due to the business division around 2002, the liabilities of financial institutions and card companies were approximately KRW 40 million, and around 2007, the personal liability was approximately KRW 60 million, and there was no plan to actually take over or take over LBs. Therefore, even if LBs were to pay the mobile phone fees on behalf of the Defendant, there was no intention or ability to pay it.

The defendant deceivings I as such and causes I to do so.

1.6.For the transfer of 371,750 won to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of Y-type mobile phone overdue charge.