Defendant

Since monetary transactions between the defendant and F in the part concerning victim F is over a long period based on personal trust relationship, it is not reasonable to evaluate it differently for each period.

The Defendant did not agree to pay interest at a high rate of 15% per month to F, and the principal and interest have been continuously paid, and the Defendant was able to use the borrowed money for personal purposes without limiting it to stock investments.

Since the defendant and F have engaged in money transactions within the meaning of giving and receiving assistance, the defendant has no intention to commit fraud.

The Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million to X for her husband’s business financing, and paid KRW 10 million out of the borrowed principal and interest to only one month, and the remainder of the borrowed loan is used with the permission of X, while paying the agreed interest.

In light of the above monetary loan name or the repayment amount up to 98% of the principal amount, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant had an intention to obtain the deception against X.

The Defendant began to pay the principal and interest of KRW 15,30,000,000,000 from T, and paid the principal and interest of KRW 20,000.

It is difficult to view that there was an intention of deception in light of the time of repayment and the amount of repayment.

The imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

In the facts charged by the prosecutor's mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the primary deliberation is that "the defendant would pay the victim F with interest calculated at the rate of 2.5% per month to Gangnam after one year," and that "the defendant would pay the victim F with interest calculated at the rate of 2.5% per month," and whether the victim would have paid money to the defendant."

Nevertheless, the court below is not guilty without examining the general ability and intent of the defendant.