The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The defendant shall obtain money from E who is an applicant for compensation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had the intent and ability to repay money from the victims at the time of misunderstanding of facts (limited to fraud) and, in particular, the Defendant, the husband of the victim E, by deceiving the victim E as if the Defendant had jointly and severally guaranteed the victim E’s debt.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on a different premise.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the content that "the place specified in paragraph (1)" in subparagraph 2-A of Article 2 of the Decree No. 2013 high group 7666, and "the place specified in paragraph (1)" in subparagraph 2-A of Article 2 of the Decree No. 2013 high group 1265, as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime column [2013 high group 7666], as stated in paragraph (1) of the part of the charge column [2013 high group 1265] as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained since it was changed by granting permission.

Although the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, the above argument of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, and this is examined below.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money from the victims, and in particular, with respect to the victim E, the F, the husband of the Defendant, is a joint and several surety.