The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the fraud, even though the Defendant received the check by the victim as a down payment of the purchase price, and did not intend to acquire the check by fraud, on the other hand, even though he did not receive the down payment of the purchase price and did not intend to acquire the check by fraud. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely

B) In addition, it is unclear whether K(State) was damaged by the victim as stated in the revised facts charged in relation to the crime committed in the 2015 High Order 2776, and whether the check in this case was issued for the purpose of financing funds without real transactions. In addition, the Defendant provided I with no knowledge of such fact at all, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

For the first time, the Prosecutor: (a) the facts charged against the fraud of 2015 high group 2776 of the facts charged in the instant case

3.(b) A request for permission to amend a bill of amendment was made as stated in paragraph (1), and this Court permitted this, thereby changing the subject of the judgment.

In addition, the above crime against the defendant and the other crime in the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below, despite the above reasons for reversal.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the fraud of 2015 Highest 674, the Defendant in this part of the facts charged is located in Ulsan-gun C around December 13, 2008.