The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant, under the pretext of advance payment from the victim D, had the intent and ability to repay each money under the pretext of borrowing money from the victim F, and thus, there was a criminal intent of deceiving or deceiving the victims.

However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Since the Defendant did not stay abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment, the statute of limitations for seven years has already expired.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence of 10 months sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) Whether there was a criminal intent to commit deception and deception, or whether there was a criminal intent to commit deception, the Defendant argued the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, may fully recognize the criminal intent of deception and deception like the facts charged in the instant case.

The decision was determined.

In light of the above, the court below's determination is just despite the defendant's assertion, and there were errors by misapprehending the legal principles and misconceptions of facts, despite the court below's determination, in addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence.

subsection (b) of this section.

A) While leaving Korea from Korea to Korea, the Defendant, through wife, had I acquire the victims’ obligation to the victims, instead of transferring the Defendant’s claim for the 111-dong Q apartment 105, the Defendant’s factory machinery and rent deposit operated by the Defendant to the creditor I, and had I had the intent and ability to repay.

However, in light of the contents of the I's statement and written agreement, the above agreement is an obligation relationship between the defendant and I.