The judgment below

The part of the crime No. 3 in the judgment is reversed.

The victim on December 15, 2013, among the facts charged against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not have the intent to commit deception and deception against the victim N (2016 Gohap 195, the judgment No. 1) and the victim F’s premium part (2017 Gohap 72, the judgment No. 3 of the judgment).

2) The sentence of the lower court (as indicated in the holding, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3-b, and No. 4: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and imprisonment with prison labor for three-years of the holding, and imprisonment with prison labor for ten months) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) The part that the lower court acquitted the victim N of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (2016 Gohap 195), the part that the lower court acquitted the victim E of the charge, the fraud of the victim E (2016 Gohap 195), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim F of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (2017 Gohap 72), and the fraud of the victim G Co., Ltd. (2017 Gohap 97) based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the victim of this part of the charge. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of

2) The sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, and acknowledged the following: ① Around June 4, 2015, when the victim N was jointly and severally guaranteed to a corporate bank and extended a loan of KRW 100 million to the corporate bank on June 4, 2015, the Defendant was in a situation where the Mart acquired on or around October 2014, and the Defendant was unable to fully pay for the amount of goods, etc. due to the failure to appropriately raise profits; ② the Defendant’s loan to Mart acquisition, etc.

At the same time, the victim N obtained a loan of KRW 100 million, but withdrawal and use of KRW 50 million out of the above loan as a house, and withdrawal of money from time to time under the name of the repayment of the loan, and the said loan has not been used in the balance of Mart’s acquisition.