All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Inasmuch as the Defendant did not receive money from the victims from the beginning with the intention of deceiving the victims, it constitutes a simple civil debtor. Nevertheless, there is an error in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in recognizing fraud against the Defendant. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The intention of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant’s refeasible power, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, relationship with the victim, etc. before and after

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034 delivered on March 26, 1996, etc.). Although in the civil monetary lending relationship, the intention of acquiring the borrowed money can not be acknowledged immediately with the default of obligation, the intention of acquiring the borrowed money can be recognized in a case where the borrowed money is obtained by pretending to be repaid even though the Defendant did not intend to repay or is unable to repay within the due date that was promised at the time of the loan.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20682 Decided August 1, 2018, etc.). B.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant is judged to have received money from the victims by deceiving the victims without any intention or ability to repay.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable, since the defendant's deception and fraud can be recognized.

1) The Defendant received approximately KRW 396 million from the victims, and paid 2 to 3% interest per month (around 214 to 216 of investigation records, and the Defendant is the Defendant at an investigative agency.