All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for two years, and by imprisonment with labor for 2014No310.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts (limited to the case of 2014No1314), the part that the Defendant borrowed 20,000,000 from the victim G as of February 11, 2010 and acquired by deception from the victim G, among the facts charged in the instant case, is difficult to deem that the Defendant actually borrowed the above money and immediately repaid it, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, despite that it is difficult to view that there was a criminal intent to acquire by deception.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, and the second judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in the relevant legal doctrine, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, unless the defendant is led to confession.

(1) The crime of fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act is established by deceiving a third party and acquiring property or pecuniary benefits based on the defective intent resulting therefrom. The essence of fraud is the acquisition of property or pecuniary benefits by deception, thereby infringing on the other party’s property, and thus, the other party’s actual property damage is not required (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4914, Dec. 26, 2003; 2003Do4914, Dec. 26, 2003). In a case of fraud involving the acquisition of property taking advantage of property, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud by deceiving the third party, thereby infringing on the victim’s property, and even if there is no damage to the whole property of the victim.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7473 Decided September 30, 2010). B.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below and the court of the political party shall be duly adopted.