A. In relation to the facts stated in paragraph (1) of the crime at the time of the original judgment, the Defendant did not have any fact that he was the victim at the time of borrowing money from the victim, had no intent or ability to repay the borrowed money, and used the borrowed money as the fund for the operation of the entire company. Therefore, the crime of fraud cannot be established as to the facts charged.

(2) In relation to the facts charged in the original judgment, the Defendant did not receive money as the purchase price for the Rayer processing machine by deceiving the victim, but used not only the money borrowed but also the money borrowed as the fund for the operation of the entire company. Therefore, this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed as a crime of fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts (1) above (1) in the prosecutor's office and the police, and the defendant recognized "the fact that the defendant took over the defendant corporation E because of the urgency of lending money at the time, and the situation of the above company's liabilities, etc." (Evidence No. 187, No. 191-192, No. 79-80, etc.) and other evidences duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and acquired money under the name of borrowed money, and even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim because of a large amount of debt of the above company at the time, the defendant did not have the ability to repay money within the agreed time [the fact that the defendant agreed to repay all of the borrowed money of this case within February 2, 2014, can be sufficiently recognized].

In addition, a significant portion of borrowed money has been used as the operating capital of the company.