The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. In fact, when the Defendant borrowed money from C, the sales of the Defendant’s business that the Defendant operated was sufficient to repay, and had intent to repay. However, from around 2009 to 209, the Defendant borrowed money from C, it is merely a failure to repay C due to the sudden difficulties in business due to the economic depression, and there was no deception nor intent to commit fraud.

Furthermore, since the defendant and C have been aware of not less than 10 years and have been engaged in money transactions several times, C was well aware of the business contents, etc. of the defendant and C did not demand payment of interest from the defendant.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case even though it is impossible to recognize the criminal intent of deception and deception, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in manufacturing business, such as dyke, with the trade name of E from Chungcheongbuk-gun D.

On May 7, 2008, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim C at the above E office “(80 million won) before receiving the delivery amount from the victim C.

It stated that all of them shall be repaid with KRW 90 million.

However, in fact, from June 2004 to November 2006, the Defendant was unable to use a total of KRW 90 million from the injured party on three occasions, and the obligation to other persons was about 90 million and the interest was not paid properly, and the financial difficulties of the above business were serious enough to lend money to other persons in order to pay the price of the household check issued by the Defendant in order to pay the price for the supply of goods. Meanwhile, the real estate owned by the Defendant was not sold for several years since the security right was established, and thus, the real estate owned by the Defendant was not sold for several years.