The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though it was true that the defendant had a large amount of debt at the time of the loan of this case, but there was no intention to repay the loan without deceiving the victim, and therefore there was no intention to commit fraud. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On March 28, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay 110,000 won per month to the principal and interest at the 31,000,000 won loaned from the said 31,00,000 won at the 10th office of the Daegu-gu Building C, Daegu-gu (E). From April 25, 2012 to March 25, 2015, the Defendant agreed to pay 18.90,000 won per month at the interest rate of 18.90% per month from March 25, 2015.

However, at the time of this fact, the Defendant has no particular income other than the monthly wage of KRW 3 million, but the Defendant has a debt of KRW 15 million borrowed from the workplace Dong F, and KRW 80 million borrowed from the bank account, and the above bank account obligation was repaid for the principal and interest of KRW 2.1 million per month for the above bank account obligation, and there was no intention or ability to repay the principal and interest of KRW 1.1 million per month even if the Defendant borrowed from the victim.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 31 million won as a loan from the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant’s partial statement, G Preparation’s written statement, written complaint, written complaint, attached documents, etc.; (b) the Defendant did not have any particular revenue or property under the name of the Defendant, other than KRW 3 million a month received while working in H company at the time of the instant case; and (c) the Defendant at the time was the Defendant’s KRW 15 million for I, Daegu Bank, Nonghyup Capital, etc., KRW 80 million for I.