A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Since there was a continuous transaction relationship between the defendant and the victim of mistake of facts, and the defendant also provided sufficient security to the victim, it cannot be deemed that he/she had the intent of deception.

In addition, it cannot be said that the victim was accused of the defendant because he was well aware that the management status of the company operated by the defendant is difficult.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that mistake of facts is identical to the grounds for appeal in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the allegation and the judgment of the Defendant and the defense counsel in detail under the summary of the evidence of the lower judgment.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and even in addition to the result of the examination of the evidence at the court below, it cannot be deemed that the victim knew that the financial situation of the court below did not make repayment impossible.

Therefore, as stated in the facts charged in this case, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he deceivings the victim and is provided with borrowed money or goods and the criminal intent of defraudation of such money, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

(B) The defendant has withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts after the conclusion of the pleading.

It is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant that the amount obtained by deceit on the assertion of unfair sentencing exceeds 1 billion won in total.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have led to the aggravation of business management in the course of managing the company, and it is not deemed that the criminal intent of defraudation was serious, and most of the money acquired by the crime appears to have been used for the operation of the company, etc., and when it comes to the trial, the victim agreed with the victim.