All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts did not mislead the victim of the purpose of use by borrowing money from the victim, and had property such as the deposit for lease at the time, and had provided several loans and counselings on financial rights to repay the victim's money, or made payment of interest for one year. Defendant did not have intention to commit fraud. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by providing a detailed judgment on the above assertion under the title “the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment.”

The lower court’s judgment is closely examined by comparing the aforementioned judgment with the record, and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① a situation in which the Defendant was unable to make cashed within a short time due to the period of lease, etc., and the Defendant was in a bad financial situation, such as receiving additional loans from a lending company to raise expenses for store interior after borrowing money from the victim; ② the Defendant was given a consultation on loan from G around March 2015, but it appears that he did not hear a definite answer that it is possible, and the lower court did not make any effort to repay the borrowed money to the victim, such as identifying the loan of financial rights around July 2015 after borrowing money from the victim, and by not later than June 2016, taking into account the fact that only the interest of the small amount was unilaterally paid to the victim by not later than June 2016.