The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) The defendant is entitled to a loan of KRW 200 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea by mistake of fact (the fraud against victim F)

It is recognized that even if it is possible to repay it, the victim F by deceiving him/her without the intention or ability to repay it, and that the loan is jointly and severally guaranteed.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant was unable to recover the advance payment amounting to KRW 200 million due to the improper operation of the company at the time, and that the Defendant was in a situation where interest on the separate obligations should be borne, and that the financial status is not good, there was an intention of deceiving the Defendant as to the ability to pay the obligations.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged was substantially operated by the Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu.

At the above E office around July 1, 2013, the Defendant registered the victim as E’s representative director on the ground that the victim F is "a business lending the name of the person with bad credit standing, which has many difficulties in operating the business due to women’s words, making four representative directors responsible for operating the business, leaving him/her any damage to him/her," and then, around December 10, 2013, the victim needs to pay money to the victim KRW 200 million as corporate credit.

Since a corporation is a nominal representative director, it becomes a joint guarantor only formally.

The purpose of this study was to make a false statement to the effect that "I am not able to see whether you do not cause harm to you."

However, the fact is that E operated by the defendant should pay the full amount of the loan to the existing customer's price and credit card price immediately.