A. The Defendant, through the introduction of C, borrowed KRW 36 million from the victim, and even though he did not receive the said money in collusion with C as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and sentenced him to a guilty verdict.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the court below acknowledged the assertion of mistake of facts by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, ① there was no economic condition to lend money to the defendant or C at the time, ② it is difficult to obtain the defendant’s defense counsel that the defendant lent the above money without due date or interest agreement between the defendant and the first viewing of the victim; ③ the agreement to the effect that the defendant would repay the money received from the victim by November 30, 2010, if he fails to pay by November 30, 2010, the defendant would have been consistent with the facts alleged by the victim on November 26, 2010, immediately after the sale of the victim’s land share, it is sufficiently recognized that the facts charged in this case are sufficient, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant and the defense counsel, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In view of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime of the same kind, did not recover damage, and other various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant argument, including the motive and method of the instant crime, proceeds from the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.