The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the remainder of the facts charged except for the part of the facts charged as “not guilty in the grounds” in the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant merely borrowed money from the victim, and did not deceiving the victim, such as Cheongdae or provokingd with the person related to the prosecution. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant made a confession of all the remaining facts charged except for the part which was judged not guilty on the ground at the court below's judgment. In full view of the fact that there are no circumstances to suspect the voluntariness of the confession, there are sufficient reinforcement evidence, such as the prosecutor's protocol of evidence, the statement of free savings deposit account, and the statement of free savings account transactions, and there are no new circumstances to reverse it in the trial, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the above facts charged is acceptable, and the defendant's assertion of the error is without merit

B. Although the Defendant had had a history of punishment for the same crime, he/she again obtained money in excess of a total of 1,50 million won from the victim by iceing the proceeds from the old cash or the gold-processing business, it is difficult to exempt the Defendant from punishment in light of the method of deception, the scale of damage, etc.

However, the court below's punishment seems to be too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant has agreed with the victim in the first instance, that the elderly health is not good, and that other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records such as character, behavior and environment of the defendant are considered as a whole.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, but the argument of unreasonable sentencing