A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. The money borrowed by the Defendant from the damaged party is merely KRW 30 million, and there was no intention to obtain the money from the Defendant at the time of next use.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of factual misunderstanding: (i) the victim and E stated in the investigative agency to the effect that “the victim lent KRW 40 million, including the amount of KRW 10 million in cash, to the Defendant for the purpose of landscaping business or marina business investment; and (ii) the Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million in cash from the victim on March 30, 201, prepared between the Defendant and the victim (the page 6 for the police of evidence record); and (iii) the Defendant borrowed the victim from the investigative agency on March 30, 201 and April 1, 201 (the page 40 million in total).

However, the above money appears to have been paid to E in order to repay separate borrowed money borrowed from E before 2011 (the 340th page of the prosecution record of evidence). (4) The defendant borrowed money from the victim on the ground that the economic situation was not good at the time of borrowing money, and that the business fund is needed for the victim, and used it as a deposit for the defendant's women-friendly Gu. The victim stated that he would not lend the above money if he knew the financial status or use of the borrowed money at the investigative agency (the 1st page, 240, 341, 343-345 page of the prosecution record of evidence record), 5th amount of borrowed money, source of money, etc., but the victim's statement is not consistent, but the victim has passed a considerable time from the time of the crime.