The judgment below

The part of the crime of fraud against the victim S in the judgment is reversed.

The defendant is the victim S.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The part of Paragraph 1 of the Decision 2010-Ma3863, supra, stated that "A may take over I if it lends 30 million won to the victim F, and fully repay the Defendant's existing obligation to the victim F." The victim F. He lent 30 million won to A as the cost of transferring registration for I's acquisition. The Defendant did not take part in the above act. The Defendant did not take part in the above act. (2) 2) 2010-Ma3863, the fact that the victim F was involved in the fraud related to the purchase cost of the O20-Ma3863, which was led by the victim F. 35 million won from the conclusion of the contract for the purchase of the O20-Ma3863, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victim F. 35 million won under the name of the victim F.R. acquisition cost-related fraud and the Defendant did not mislead the Defendant to acquire the 300 million won under the name of the victim F.

3) The victim S and V (hereinafter “victim”) directly confirmed the contractual relationship of a voice factory and used a promissory note as down payment after confirming the contractual relationship of the voice factory. Since the Defendant subsequently borrowed money from AJ and paid the amount of the promissory note, the Defendant did not have acquired any pecuniary profit by deceiving the victim S.

(B) AC is a person who has entered into a lease contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant is not in the custodian’s position on the instant vehicle. B. In light of the overall circumstances of unreasonable sentencing, the punishment of the lower judgment (201No. 6213): Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and the remaining crimes: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts 12010 high-level 3863, and