A. In other words, the Defendant borrowed 30 million won from the victim to the victim’s business funds.

Therefore, the victim trusted the defendant's ability to repay the defendant's children, who was not the defendant, and was engaged in the middle and high sales business.

K had a plan to sell a heavy vehicle and repay the loan.

In addition, the victim extended money in good faith to the defendant for a long period of time, and there is no fact that the defendant excessive self-sufficiency of the victim or caused a mistake in the ability to repay.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of deception and deception.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court has the intention of deceiving and defrauding the Defendant.

1. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the conclusion of the judgment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

(1) The loan certificate shall be written by the defendant as the borrower and shall not include K.

The defendant has borrowed money from the police to the victim because it is necessary to use it for project costs.

“The statement was made”.

As such, the parties who borrowed money from the damaged party are the defendants and intended to use money for K’s business funds are merely the reasons why the defendant borrowed money. ② Moreover, even according to the K’s letter of confirmation submitted by the defendant, the defendant remitted only KRW 20 million out of KRW 30 million borrowed from the damaged party to K, and the remaining KRW 10 million is paid with the money that he/she lent to K.