The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant living together with E, who is the father of the victim D, and when the card payment settlement following the excessive consumption of E occurs during the period of living together, the defendant, E, and the victim D agreed to resolve the card payment with the money of the above victim and thereby the victim D paid the amount to the defendant to solve this problem, and accordingly, the victim D did not defraud the money by deceiving the above victim as in the facts charged, but the defendant and the victim I argued that the victim I acquired the money by deceiving the above victim, such as in the facts charged, was used as the expenses of the gathering operation or the joint living expenses of the above victim, which the victim I operated together with the victim I, or was

(M) In addition, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

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

A prosecutor applied for amendments to an indictment with the purport that “The amount of damage set forth in No. 2 No. 16 of the annexed Table 2 of the judgment of the court below shall be changed to KRW 10,000,000,000, and the total amount of damage shall be changed to KRW 139,90,000,000, respectively, from KRW 152,90,000 in the judgment of the court below.” Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, even if the above grounds for ex officio destruction exist, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the below.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., victim D consistently offers money from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court. Although the Defendant borrowed money, the victim D’s statement was made on the grounds that the Defendant borrowed money.