A. Although the defendant borrowed money from the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case (hereinafter referred to as "the money in this case"), the defendant had the intent or ability to pay the above money at the time, and the fact also is 3.5 million won, 2.5 million won, 1.5 million won, 2.5 million won, and 9 won, and 21 million won (in the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant, 1.1 million won, according to the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant), the court below found all of the facts charged in this case on a different premise, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of mistake of facts; deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have a good faith and good faith to be observed with each other in property transaction. It does not necessarily require that it is related to the important part of a juristic act; it is sufficient if it is related to the basic facts of a judgment in order to allow an actor to perform the act of disposal which he wishes to dispose of property by omitting the other party into mistake. Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake of another person should be determined generally and objectively in consideration of the specific circumstances at the time of the act such as transaction, other party’s knowledge, experience, occupation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7459, Oct. 15, 2009). In addition, in a case where a third party did not respond to the true notice of the purpose or method of raising funds to repay the borrowed money in borrowing money from another person, the purpose or method of financing.