The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. The Defendant, who had a misunderstanding of facts, borrowed money from the injured party, but failed to repay it.

However, in light of the fact that there was no intention to acquire money before and after borrowing money, there was no intention to obtain money.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) The defendant needs to pay money to the victim with her husband’s business fund.

A loan shall be made within three months from the date of lending money.

“.....”

The Defendant borrowed KRW 47 million in total from the injured party on April 10, 2015, and KRW 17 million on April 30, 2015.

② At the time of borrowing money from the victimized party, the Defendant was a bad credit holder with approximately KRW 500 million of taxes in arrears. The Defendant’s husband was also a bad credit holder with approximately KRW 700 million of taxes in arrears.

The defendant operated a secondhand shop at that time, and only 200 to 30 million won monthly income, and the husband of the defendant was engaged in a construction business, but it was not smooth to provide financial support due to the use of the construction cost already received for the secondhand farming expenses.

③ The Defendant paid the victim KRW 300,000 to around September 2016, KRW 400,000,000 around October 2016, and KRW 100,000 around November 201, 2016, and only repaid the victim KRW 30,000 on January 23, 2017, which was filed against the victim on January 11, 2017.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances revealed in the above facts, the Defendant was objectively difficult to repay the borrowed money to the victim within three months.

such payment is to be made within 3 months.

Since deceiving the damaged person and borrowing a total of KRW 47 million from the damaged person, the intention of defraudation may be recognized.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

B. The defendant is the primary offender to determine the unfair argument of sentencing.