A. Since a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not determine the due date and they did not have any damage as at the present time due to the lack of a claim for reimbursement, fraud is not established. Meanwhile, the crime committed Nos. 1 through 63 of the annexed crime list is only a victim paid money based on the relation of interest regardless of the purpose of the loan, and there was no deception as to the defendant's intent of repayment or ability to pay. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the victim is also responsible for the occurrence or expansion of damages, and that the Defendant is the first offender and is in depth, etc.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) is established when a criminal acquires property or property benefits by a dispositive act of the defrauded, which is deceptioned and erroneously omitted, and thus, the acquisition of such benefits infringes on the other party’s property, and thus, even if the other party did not actually incur property damage, it does not affect the establishment of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5215, Sept. 15, 2005). Furthermore, it is reasonable to deem that the victim’s actual loss was actually

(2) In addition, in full view of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim over about 135 times for about 10 months, the Defendant did not have paid the above money, continued to make a false statement about its intended purpose, and there were many cases where the degree of deception and the degree of deception were not less exceptionally, the Defendant borrowed the entire crime of this case including the crime Nos. 1 through 63 of the annexed crime list.