A. Since the Defendant had intent and ability to repay money from the victim at the time of borrowing money, the Defendant did not have the intent to obtain money from the victim for the crime of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant argued the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by judging that it is reasonable to recognize that the defendant borrowed money from the victim without intent or ability to repay and that the defendant had a criminal intent to acquire money.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Prior to the instant case, there is no criminal history subject to criminal punishment, the Defendant paid a certain amount under the name of the principal and interest repayment to the victim, and the Defendant’s health status appears to be not good, etc. are favorable circumstances to the Defendant.

However, the defendant, using personal trust relationship with the victim, has repeatedly obtained money from the victim several times, and the victim seems to have suffered serious economic or mental damage, and the amount of damage is equivalent to KRW 118,400,000,000.