A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mistake or mistake of facts, and by misapprehending the legal principles, the defendant did not mean that he would pay the credit card payment at the time when he received the instant money from the injured party as stated in the facts charged, and since the victim borrowed money without setting the due date even though he was aware of all the financial circumstances of the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant, as otherwise alleged in the facts charged.

1) The victim consistently stated that “Around the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s children in arrears with the credit card price of KRW 6 million, who did not pay the monthly amount of KRW 6 million from the Defendant at the time of the instant case, due to bad credit standing, must go from the company, and he shall be paid to the Defendant with a 6 million loan, and he shall be given a her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her a

According to the evidence of custody (five pages of evidence record) delivered by the Defendant to the victim immediately after the loan of this case, the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant received KRW 6 million from the injured party on December 2, 201 and returned it to the victim by December 30, 201, and that the Defendant’s aforementioned statement is consistent with the victim’s statement.

No other circumstance exists to suspect the credibility of the above statement of the victim (the victim).