A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim’s name or used the card under the victim’s name. However, the victim did not pay 30 million won out of the acquisition price of the main points to the Defendant. Since the Defendant received the remainder of the main points from the victim and intended to repay the debt and the card to the victim, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may borrow money from the injured party under the name of the injured party or use the card under the name of the injured party without his/her intent or ability. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

A. When the Defendant’s general ability to repay money borrowed money from the injured party and used the card under the name of the injured party, the Defendant spent KRW 37.5 million in the month when the Defendant paid interest on the loan and the principal to repay, and real estate owned by the Defendant was established by a financial institution, and the Defendant was unable to obtain a loan under the name of the injured party, and was given a loan under the name of the injured party and borrowed the loan from the injured party. In light of the circumstances, the Defendant’s general ability could not be said to have repaid the money borrowed from the injured party or the card under the name of the injured party.

B. Defendant’s physical repayment plan 1) The Defendant sought from the injured party the remainder of the principal payment amount of KRW 30 million and intended to complete the payment.

The defendant, the defendant and the defendant alleged.