A. In fact, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the above borrowed money at the time of borrowing five million won from the victim E.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (300 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the Defendant voluntarily stated in the investigative agency that “Around 2011, the Defendant was liable for an individual debt worth KRW 25 million; (b) was given a loan by the Saemaul Bank; (c) was not under circumstances to receive an additional loan; (d) her husband was not at credit rating due to her husband’s failure to lend money under her own name; and (e) did not have any special property; and (b) the Defendant borrowed KRW 3.1.5 million from H around January 14, 201, which was similar to the time of the instant crime, and was punished for a non-payment of KRW 3.1.5 million; and (c) the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the said amount at the time of borrowing KRW 5 million from the victim E.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

Therefore, the argument of mistake is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant paid KRW 500,000 to the victim E of the fraud crime is considered favorable to the Defendant.

However, even if the Defendant did not file an application for a loan, the instant crime would be repaid to F on the face of a loan of KRW 5 million to the previous lending of money.

F by deceiving the above victim by deceiving the F, by deceiving 5 million won from the above victim, and not paying 2.5 million won of wages G of workers, the nature of the crime is poor, the defendant has a record of criminal punishment due to the fraud, and other facts.