The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) did not make a false statement as to the true purpose of the loan at the time of borrowing KRW 20 million from the injured party (hereinafter “the instant loan”); (b) was actually used to operate the said loan; and (c) was unable to repay the victim’s loan with the “ alcoholic beverage loan” due to the change in the circumstances; and thus, there was the Defendant’s deception.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the defendant did not have the intention to commit fraud because he had the intent and ability to repay at the time of the loan of this case.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of the suspended sentence of six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rejected the said assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’

In addition to the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below can sufficiently recognize the criminal intent of deception and deception of the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) Whether fraud is recognized or not (1) The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to be widely observed in the transactional relationship with property, and it does not necessarily mean that it is an essential part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient if it is based on the basic facts of the judgment to allow the actor to perform a disposal of property that the other party wishes by omitting the other party into mistake, and whether the act constitutes a deception that causes a mistake of other persons.