A. The victim of mistake of facts is anticipated to anticipate the risk of delay in repayment or impossibility of repayment of the defendant in the future and loans to the defendant. The defendant cannot be viewed as deceiving the victim about the use of the borrowed money or the ability of repayment, and there was no intention of defraudation.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the argument of mistake of facts, but the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds, and found the Defendant guilty of all the crime of this case. The victim believed at an investigative agency that “the victim believed that he would make a payment with a loan,” and that he would make a payment with a deposit of KRW 50,00 won,” and that he would make a payment with a deposit of KRW 5,000,000. In addition, the Defendant was 5,000 and KRW 50,000,000, and it was known that the economic situation of the Defendant was good because he was well written. The Defendant was aware of the fact that there was an existing loan obligation to the Defendant. The Defendant was aware of the process of lending the first loan to the Defendant at the time of giving the first loan, and that he continued to lend money to the Defendant’s speech that he would make a payment with a loan prior to funeral,” and that there was no consistent statement and specific circumstance to the effect that he stated otherwise.

Although the Defendant stated that “a bank has attempted to borrow money from a victim, but it was refused to borrow money,” it is difficult for the Defendant to expect that the Defendant’s attempt to lend money after the Defendant’s loan would be repaid. In fact, the Defendant intended to operate the bank by way of not paying to the victim each five million won of the loans from H Bank and I Bank around June 2016.