The defendant pays to the applicant the amount of KRW 130,50,000,000,00.

(1) The Defendant had the intent and ability to open a store or return the money received as expenses open to the store.

(2) The Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim, and had no intention to acquire it by deception.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the lower court that convicted the Defendant of the entire facts charged in this case is justifiable.

① In borrowing money from another person, if the other party has failed to comply with the true notice concerning the method of raising funds to repay out of the borrowed money, and if the other party has failed to comply therewith, the crime of fraud is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005). The victim, according to the schedule for paying the Franchis contract price agreed with the Defendant, remitted to the Defendant KRW 13 million, including the down payment of KRW 8 million on March 9, 2015, the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million on March 12, 2015, and KRW 30 million on March 23, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 30 million on March 23, 2015, other than the investigation record, 300,000,000 won on March 15, 2015, as well as the deposit and premium, etc. < Amended by Act No. 13283, Mar. 315, 2015>

However, even though the Defendant, while paying only five million won the down payment to the lessor, withdrawn the FOE sales plan, the Defendant concealed the situation and delayed the interior work.

The victim made a false statement, and the victim received money for a specified purpose shall be paid for the settlement of other stores and invested money immediately.