A. The Defendant, at the time of borrowing the instant loan from the victim, tried to continue to operate the business through the G, and the prospect of the business was very good, so the Defendant had the intent to repay and the ability to repay the loan. However, the business was delayed due to the circumstances of H, which is the partner, and the Defendant was unable to repay the loan due to the disturbance of the victim.

In addition, the defendant does not request the victim to borrow the loan of this case, but the victim actively colors the lender for the purpose of securing interest on the loan, and thereby the loan of this case was made.

Considering these circumstances, it can not be said that there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the defendant.

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

2. Determination

A. The charge of this case’s assertion that there was one intention and ability to make a decision on mistake of facts, is false statement that the Defendant would return the instant loan to the victim within six months in the absence of the intent or ability to repay the loan, even if the Defendant was unable to maintain the financial standing of the KCA and borrowed money from the employees to the point of delayed payment of wages due to the failure to maintain the financial standing of the KCA and the personal debt amounting to KRW 500 million.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, as stated in the facts charged in this case, the financial status of the LAC and the defendant at the time of the loan in this case is not good and the overdue wage was not paid properly, and the defendant used the loan in this case mainly for the repayment of the existing loan and personnel expenses. Thus, it is false that the defendant can repay the loan after six months under the condition that he did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan by the due date of the loan in this case.