Since the victim was a religious belief to Nar G, the victim only lent money at the request of G.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts.

The court below rejected the assertion in detail on the basis of the summary of the evidence.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s rejection of the above assertion by the Defendant is justifiable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

① The fact that the Defendant demanded that the victim borrow money from G is sufficiently recognized by the victim, G’s legal statement in the lower court, and relevant civil cases (Seoul Western District Court 2016Na 2912).

There is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statements made by victims and G.

② On the other hand, if the victim knew that the building was owned by the Defendant, he/she would not lend money to G (the investigation record 37,69 pages, and the trial record 43,52 pages). Generally, from the standpoint of the creditor who lends construction costs, if he/she knew that the building was not owned by the obligor, there is a possibility that a non-performance of an obligation would lead to compulsory execution against the building on which the construction is carried out, and thus, if it is easily anticipated that the content of the contract would be changed by means of not lending money to the obligor or demanding additional security, the Defendant would be informed the victim of such fact.