Even though the defendant did not have any ability or intent to repay money, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① a person who borrowed money to the victim at the time of the instant case was the Defendant, and the loan was also remitted to the account under the name of the Defendant; ② the Defendant was in a relationship with the victim, unlike the Defendant, who was in a relationship with the victim.

G had no special relationship with the victim at the time of the instant case with the victim who was the second accident.

G has received a credit loan and lent money to G.

(3) The Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party as necessary for the business operated by G.

However, the Defendant used 8 million won out of 9 million won borrowed from the injured party, and 4. The Defendant had no demand from the injured party to pay the victim’s money from the injured party to the time of receiving the demand for repayment from the injured party to the time of receiving the instant petition, and 5. The Defendant had a revenue of KRW 20 million to 3 million per month while managing the instant petition and singing.

One of the arguments is there is no evidence to support the real estate under the name of the defendant at the time, and there is no special property value due to the collateral security, provisional seizure, etc., the real estate under the name of the defendant at the time does not have much amount of market price, and 6. There is no record that the defendant received living expenses, etc. from G, 8 million won out of 9 million won borrowed from the injured party is used for the defendant's living expenses, and 7. There is no repayment of money borrowed up until now.