Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Although the fact-finding 2018 No. 1644, May 24, 2013 borrowed KRW 2 million from the victim of the misunderstanding of the fact, the intent to repay and the person with financial capacity was satisfied at the time, and all of them were repaid. There was no difference in borrowing KRW 5 million from the victim on September 30, 2013.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Sentencing 2018No 243 decided (unfair sentencing) rendered by the lower court to the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against each of the judgment below by the defendant's authority, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 cannot escape from the whole reversal.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined as follows.

3. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. Although the claimant borrowed KRW 2 million from the injured party on May 24, 2013, the claimant had the intent to repay and had the ability to repay in full, and the claimant did not borrow KRW 5 million from the injured party on September 30, 2013.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as a whole, the defendant can be fully convicted of the facts charged that the defendant acquired money from the victims under the pretext of borrowing money even though he/she did not have the intent to repay or ability to repay, so the defendant's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(1) The defendant.