A. The Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the money from the victim at the time of receiving the money, and there was no deception for the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable, even if not, on the other hand, unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated. ① The defendant was under an economic difficult situation without any other income at the time of receiving the money from the victim; ② the defendant used all the money received from the victim for gambling and borrowed money again to the victim without paying interest or principal up to now; ③ the defendant notified the victim at the time of the instant case as alleged by the defendant that he would use the money for gambling; ③ even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim as stated in the facts charged, it cannot be deemed that the victim would lose the money by gambling; and as long as the defendant could not be deemed to have borrowed money from the victim, the defendant could not be deemed to have borrowed money from the victim in a situation where he could not repay the borrowed money by gambling; ④ the defendant borrowed money from the victim in a lump sum, and ④ the defendant borrowed money from the victim; ④ the defendant could not be acknowledged as being subject to the confession of the facts charged by the defendant; and there is no objective reason to suspect that the defendant could not be any other objective reason to suspect the confession.