Although the Defendant had the intent to repay and had the ability to repay 30 million won at the time of borrowing 30 million won from the victim, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged was erroneous in matters of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) the victim stated that “If the Defendant lends KRW 30 million to the purpose of purchasing materials for construction, the victim would have been fully repaid prior to the delay; (b) the statement is specific and consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court; and (c) the content of text messages exchanged between the victim and the Defendant correspond to the victim’s statement; (c) the Defendant asserted that there was no time limit for repayment; (d) it is difficult to view that the Defendant used the borrowed money for the purpose of operating the company of this case, not for the purchase of materials for construction; and (e) the Defendant did not have any intent to faithfully and faithfully perform his obligation, instead of mentioning its economic situation after the time limit for payment; and (v) it was difficult to view that the Defendant had a considerable amount of 20 years prior to the date of borrowing and the Defendant’s cash flow from 20 years prior to the lapse of 13 years prior to the lapse of 20 years prior to the date of the agreement.