All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. (1) Although there is a fact that misunderstanding of facts Defendant (1) borrowed a total of KRW 100 million from the victim, there is no deception by the victim, nor did the Defendant have the intent to repay or ability to repay.

The court below erred in misconception of facts.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, and three hundred hours of the community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, (i) the Defendant was in bad credit standing from around 2006, and (ii) was liable to financial institutions, etc. around April 201; (iii) the Defendant appears to have borrowed money from the victim while doing so as to have considerable property or income to himself/herself or his/her family; and (iv) the Defendant used the funds borrowed from the victim to repay his/her existing debt; and in particular, the Defendant used the funds borrowed from the victim on January 26, 2012 to pay his/her existing debt; (iv) there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant was in bad credit standing; and (v) there was no influence on the Defendant’s property status in determining the Defendant’s ability to repay; and (v) the Defendant’s deception could be recognized by deceiving the Defendant under the pretext of deceptioning the Defendant.

We affirm the lower court’s conviction of each of the charges of this case.

B. On the part of the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, a large amount of money obtained by deceit amounting to KRW 100 million, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.