Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had no intent or ability to repay each amount from the victims at the time of borrowing each amount from the victims. Thus, all of the facts charged in this case is found guilty, and the judgment of the court below that made the same conclusion is correct, and there was no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

① At the time of 2010, the Defendant claimed that: (a) at the time of 2010, the Defendant was not a de facto donation of KRW 6-70 million for the business funds 6-7 billion subsidized by his father; (b) there was no particular obligation except for the obligation 80 million with respect to item (b) V; (c) there was a claim of USD 80,000 against H; and (d) there was a project of the United States under the agreement on ex post facto settlement of expenses with respect to the domestic project funds of professional camping-gu 10,000,000 won for each of the instant loans; and (e) there was sufficient intent to repay not only the ability to repay but also the intent

② According to the Defendant’s father’s letter of confirmation (No. 18), the Defendant’s father’s father’s letter of confirmation (Evidence No. 18) submitted by the Defendant at the trial, the Defendant’s father expressed that the Defendant’s father expressed that the Defendant’s father is not the money of the nature to receive a return.

However, this is merely an ex post facto opinion expressed by the father as the case was tried, and the defendant should pay a certain amount of money to his father at the time of the instant case, which was 2010.