A. At the time of mistake of facts, the business of the defendant company was likely to develop into a promising type of business, so there was intention and ability to repay, and there was no intention to commit the crime by defraudation against the defendant, even though there was a circumstance in which the complainant provided the defendant's office with 1 column, integrated house and office staff so that the complainant can conduct the execution business in return for borrowing money from the complainant.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (fine 3.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) at the time when the defendant borrows money from the victim, the defendant company's liabilities were much more than 150 million won, and there was an amount of less than 50 million won per month until the beginning of 2011; and (ii) the defendant was in a situation where he was unable to pay wages to the employees of the defendant company at the time (which was punished as a violation of the Labor Standards Act) (iii) even if the defendant was unable to pay wages to the victim within one week or six months, the defendant did not explain that he would have paid KRW 15 million within one week, and (iv) if the victim knew of such circumstances, the defendant did not receive a letter of investment from the victim, the defendant could not have borrowed the money to the victim; and (v) if he did not obtain a new technology from the new technology investment company, the defendant could not obtain a letter of investment in the new technology from the Minister of Knowledge Economy for a period of 00 million won.