A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

A. It did not have the intention to obtain money from the time of fraudulent borrowing, but used the borrowed money as the actual construction cost.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. On November 7, 2012, at the time of borrowing the instant loan, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000 to H, the owner of the instant construction on November 7, 2012, as follows: (i) the internal approval of the hotel side, a building owner, on November 7, 2012, at the time of borrowing the loan; (ii) the Defendant was expected to pay the loan and tax account settlement on the 12th of the same month, which is five days after the loan bank; (iii) the Defendant actually paid the loan in advance on the 12th of the same month; and (iv) the Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000 to H, the owner of the instant construction, on November 7, 2012, to avoid suspending the instant construction.

However, even if considering the details of the construction cost that the Defendant used the borrowed money, it does not seem that there is an urgent reason to suspend the original construction if five days are delayed. ③ In order to receive the borrowed money from the lending bank in the instant construction project, the Defendant, as a matter of course, did not receive evidentiary documents, such as a receipt for the use of the borrowed money, from the beginning even though evidentiary documents are required, and ④ in the investigative agency and the court of the court below, the J made a call between the president of the subcontractor and the skickphone in order to verify the fact that there was a talk that the Defendant received money from the lending bank at the time, and the Defendant paid to the subcontractor.

Most of the claimed amounts were irrelevant to the construction of this case, and they were not treated as construction costs due to lack of evidence.

(5) The victim must set the construction period in the investigative agency and the court of original instance.