A. In a situation where the misunderstanding of facts knows all the financial situation of the Defendant and G (hereinafter “instant company”) operated by the Defendant at the time of lending the instant money, the Defendant lent KRW 50 million under the name of the attorney fees and living expenses necessary for the collection of the Defendant’s claim. This was the Defendant’s act of deception at the time of the instant case, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant anticipated to win the instant money in a trial and voluntarily lent the money to collect his own loan and to acquire the fee of KRW 100 million; and (b)

It is difficult to see it.

Since the complainant expected to win the judgment and lent the money, and did not trust the Defendant’s financial resources that had been delayed in implementing KRW 100 million, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant acquired the money only with the legal capacity. In fact, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant jointly owned the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H apartment No. 103 Dong 1206 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) with his spouse, and even after the instant money was borrowed, the complainant was capable of raising funds by depositing KRW 3855 million with the instant company in provisional receipts, and thus, the complainant was capable of paying KRW 50 million to the complainant.

In addition, the defendant has paid interest on KRW 100 million to the complainant, and the failure to pay the money of this case is due to changes in the situation that the management of the company of this case is aggravated, and since he has repaid the borrowed money of this case during the trial of the court below, he did not intend to pay the defendant.

It is also difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. The following are acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts.