As such, the defendant had sufficient ability to repay and even the victim knew of his lending money to the defendant, and there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim.

The reason why the defendant was unable to repay all the money to the victim is that he/she was unable to repay the money from the defendant, so there is no intention of fraud that the defendant deceivings the victim with the intention of fraud.

Sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The above sentencing of the court below by the public prosecutor is too unfortunate and unfair.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the Defendant, even if he/she borrowed money from the injured party, he/she did not have any intent or ability to repay the money in time, by deceiving the injured party as stated in the facts of the crime in the lower judgment, and by deceiving the victim as a sum of KRW 314.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① On April 2012, the Defendant had no income or special property other than the money placed in D’s section, and the amount of the tax in arrears was at least KRW 420 million, and the amount borrowed from G, other than the victim, exceeds KRW 400,000,000,000, is also deemed to have been considerable.

② The Defendant lent most of the money borrowed from the victimized party to J and N. However, the Defendant was not able to receive the money borrowed from J in 201 and was not able to receive the payment even if the money was not given to J and N. Therefore, the Defendant was not able to receive the payment even if the money was given to J and N.

(3) The defendant shall be equivalent to KRW 290,680,000 until now to the victim.