A. In regard to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1), the Defendant merely borrowed 130 million won (hereinafter “the instant loan”) by demanding the victim to lend the surplus funds to him/her, and does not deceiving the purpose of using the funds as expenses for manufacturing advertisements on the expressway or for selling on auction, but did not borrow the instant loan by deceiving him/her to use it as expenses for manufacturing advertisements on the expressway or for selling on the expressway. Until July 201, 201, the Defendant had the intent or ability to repay the instant loan by faithfully repaying the interest, so no crime is established.

(2) As to the act of injury, the Defendant only met her buck with the victim, and did not assault the victim.

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

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below duly admitted and investigated each evidence, namely, the following circumstances: (i) around September 1, 2010, the victim: (i) around September 1, 2010, the defendant lent KRW 50 million to the court of the court of the court below, stating that he/she borrowed KRW 30 million from his/her son who knows that he/she would be an auction expense; (ii) around March 7, 2011, he/she borrowed KRW 80 million to the victim, stating that he/she additionally lent the money of her mother and child to the victim (Article 51, 53, 54 of the trial record; (iii) No. 18, 39, 41, 442, 114, 115 of the evidence record; and (iv) the victim did not have any specific credibility and credibility of his/her statement from the investigation agency to the third party.