An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

A. The Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and did not deception the Defendant’s ability to repay, and the victim had already been aware of the Defendant’s ability to repay.

In relation to the amount of fraud, the Defendant received only the remainder after deducting 20% of the interest and 20% from the victim, and only received approximately KRW 648 billion, not KRW 810,400,000,000.

In addition, although the nominal loan is a nominal loan, it was actually paid as communal living expenses, etc. and used a total of KRW 600 million as communal living expenses. It is not deceiving the victim.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (the first criminal facts in the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and the second criminal facts in the decision of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim has consistently made a statement to the effect that it corresponds to the above facts charged; (ii) the victim and the defendant seems to have been very closely-friendly; (iii) the victim would have not been aware of his/her ability to repay the defendant; (iv) the defendant would have not given such large amount of money if he/she had been aware of his/her ability to pay the defendant; (v) the defendant continued to have received KRW 810,440,000 at the time of the prosecutor's investigation; (v) the victim delivered money to the defendant in cash or by account transfer; and (v) the victim would have not deducted 20% of the account transfer details confirmed by the bank.