The part concerning the respective crimes of No. 2 and No. 3 in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) On December 15, 2008, the Defendant did not borrow KRW 3,8640,000 from the Victim F (G before the opening of the name), among the crimes No. 1 of the Decision on KRW 2,000,000,000.

2) Of the crimes of Article 2 of the Judgment of the 2nd Judgment, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have given notice of harm sufficient to the extent that the Defendant had caused fear to the victim N.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 3 million; the second lower judgment: imprisonment for eight months: suspended execution; imprisonment for two years; surveillance of protection; community service order 200 hours; and fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, each of the above appeals cases was consolidated with the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment against the defendant was concurrent with the second instance judgment and the second instance judgment with respect to the crime of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act should be sentenced to one punishment within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, each of the crimes under Article 2 of the judgment of the court below and the second instance judgment, and the crimes under Article 38(2) of the second instance judgment and Article 2 of the second instance judgment cannot be maintained as they are.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake as to the part concerning the crime of intimidation among crimes No. 2 of the decision of the 2nd judgment of the judgment of the court was still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

3. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake as to the fraud of December 15, 2008, among crimes No. 1 of the judgment of the first instance court in the judgment of the second instance, the Defendant may sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant deceivings the victim, thereby deceiving 3,864,00 won. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

A. The injured party and D made a statement about the reasons why the injured party lent 3,8640,000 won to the defendant as follows. The injured party and D make a statement about the above reasons.