A. The Defendant had intention or ability to repay money to the victim at the time of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, but was unable to pay money due to disputes with partners.

Therefore, the defendant did not take deception as to the intention or ability of repayment, and did not have the intention of fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's decision as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and the records, the defendant seems to have believed that at the time of borrowing money, the victim was in preparation for the open space of Lestop, and the defendant had no means to accept the above Lestop at the time. However, the defendant did not have any means to prepare the acquisition cost and operate Lestop, and there was no money corresponding to the above acquisition cost. The defendant's account did not have any money, but the defendant did not pay the money from the account used for Lestop, but did not pay it due to the occurrence of the dispute with the partner. However, the defendant did not have any material to support this, considering the fact that there was no regular income of the defendant at the time of borrowing money from the victim, from February 19, 2018 to the point that there was no adequate economic ability or ability to pay the mobile phone fees, the defendant's intent to commit deception or mistake of facts cannot be recognized.

B. Although there is no record of criminal punishment in Korea regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is a favorable condition for the defendant, the defendant.