A. The Defendant had the ability and intent to pay money from the injured party at the time of borrowing money from the injured party, but only he did not pay the money with the wind bound by other cases.

In fact, all of the borrowed money was repaid.

Therefore, the defendant has no intention to deception.

B. Sentencing is unfair because the sentence (2.5 million won) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable for the criminal defendant to be sentenced to punishment.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant, while having no intent or ability to repay, deceiving the victim of the money as stated in the lower judgment can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

① Although the Defendant was the victim’s entertainment expenses for E, the Defendant had already received a complaint from E, and at the time, the Defendant had not been in need of entertainment expenses for the said person (which was actually detained by E). If the Defendant was informed of the true use of the money, it is reasonable to deem that the victim did not lend money to the Defendant.

② According to the contents of text messages sent by the Defendant to the victim, the Defendant would pay in full the borrowed money.

The promise did not comply with the repeated promise, and finally, written and written a letter of intent to complete payment from March 15, 2015.

Before and after the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party, the Defendant had a fixed income.

There is no particular ground to view.

Even according to the details of the defendant's account transactions, there are regular deposits into the defendant's account, but most of them are used immediately.

(3) The defendant is holding an elevated apartment in the family court under the name of his/her spouse.

and submit the data.