Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The Defendant had no criminal intent to obtain money from the victim at the time of borrowing money, and the borrowed money as stated in Paragraph 2 of the decision of the court below does not require the Defendant’s money to be borrowed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found each of the loan acts guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (5 million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below, and since each crime of fraud as stated in the judgment of the court below is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of the punishment within the scope of the punishment imposed for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the above crimes and omitted weight of the concurrent crimes.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the above argument of mistake of facts by the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is consistent with the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the victim stated that the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court’s trial on September 20, 201; and that the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million from the amount to the amount to be used on March 30, 201, as the Defendant’s early payment was required on March 30, 2012; ② the Defendant also stated in the investigative agency as stated above by the Defendant with regard to the specific facilities used at the time of borrowing; and in particular, the fact about KRW 5 million from March 30, 2012 was used to repay the number of days to the victim; however, the victim took over KRW 10 million from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to the court of the lower court; and the Defendant stated that he borrowed money and made a false statement on three occasions.