The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud against the victim F by misunderstanding the legal principles, F is not a loan to the defendant with the belief of C that the defendant is liable for the borrowed money, or it is not a loan to the defendant due to the defendant's repayment promise. Therefore, there is no causation between the deception and the disposal act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the instant case’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that C introduced the Defendant F, who is not the Defendant, and let F lend KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and it is recognized that C would be liable for the said borrowed money.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant requested F to lend money, either directly or through C, to pay the principal and interest for each month if he/she lends 50 million won to F, and further, he/she prepared and delivered a promissory note document with a face value of 50 million won directly or at face value of F, and as the defendant did not pay the above money, it can be acknowledged that F filed a complaint against the defendant. In full view of the above facts of recognition, the court below acknowledged the fact that F lent money to the defendant due to the defendant's deception, and even if F took into account the relation with C or the guarantee of C.

Even if there is no causal relationship between deception and disposal act, it can not be severed.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. In light of the fact that the amount acquired by the Defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing is a large amount of KRW 1.7 million, the Defendant should be punished strictly. However, the victims may be aware of the high interest and make it easy to receive money without any confirmation or safety device.