The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction on August 2013, 201, on the charge of forced indecent conduct on or around April 2014, on the charge of forced indecent conduct, on or around September 2012, on the charge of forced indecent conduct on or around early 2013, on the charge of forced indecent conduct on or around early 20:00, on the charge of forced indecent conduct on or around June 2013, and on the charge of forced indecent conduct on or around early 2013, on the charge of forced indecent conduct on or around early 2013, and rendered a judgment of conviction on the remainder of the facts charged (the charge of fraud No. 4193, Jun. 201), and only the Defendant appealed on the guilty portion.

Therefore, in the judgment of the court below, the dismissal of the prosecution and the acquittal that the prosecutor did not appeal are finalized, the judgment of this court is limited to the conviction part among the judgment below.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding of legal principles, borrowed KRW 173 million from the victim E (hereinafter “the instant loan”), but did not specify the due date until September 2013. The victim also knowingly, knowing that the Defendant cannot repay the instant loan by September 2013.

In addition, until October 2013, the defendant paid the victim a sum of KRW 5,853,00 to the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and in the misapprehension of legal principles, since the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention to defraud the borrowed money.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and the legal doctrine, the Defendant, despite dolusent awareness of the fact that the Defendant could not properly repay the money borrowed from the injured party, he/she was urged the injured party as stated in the facts charged, and received the instant borrowed money.