A. When the Defendant received a loan after cancelling the provisional registration of this case, the Defendant had agreed in advance with the victim to pay the victim KRW 60 million on the side of the H company, and believed that the H company would pay the above amount to the victim.

However, since the H company did not pay the above money to the victim, the defendant does not have deceiving the victim, nor does he have the intention of defraudation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the above purport in the judgment of the court below. The court below is consistent with the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated. ① The victim did not have any explanation about debt acquisition, etc. from the defendant in advance, and I also knew the fact that the H company was receiving a loan of KRW 350 million from the side of the H company as security, but regardless of such fact, the defendant decided to immediately repay the borrowed amount to the victim when the provisional registration of this case was cancelled only. ② The defendant did not clearly explain the victim in advance regarding the acquisition of the borrowed amount against the victim and appears to have not obtained the consent. ③ The fact that H company borrowed money from the defendant as security and paid a loan to the defendant with KRW 10 million from the defendant and the H company with a certain amount of money borrowed from the defendant, and the acquisition of the apartment loan of this case is insufficient as the internal agreement of the defendant and H company to cancel the provisional registration of this case.