The defendant shall pay the applicant for compensation the amount of KRW 190 million by fraud.

3.2

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have the intent or ability to repay KRW 190 million from the victim at the time of borrowing the above money. However, the Defendant did not pay the above money to the victim due to the fact that the Defendant intended to sell the Defendant’s factory, but did not pay the money to the victim due to the fact that the sale of the factory is delayed, and did not receive the money by deceiving the victim

In addition, the KRW 150 million under paragraph (2) of the facts charged of the instant case was borrowed as a factory operation fund, unlike this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which found guilty of this case.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant alleged that the lower court had the same purport as otherwise alleged in mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts affecting the judgment, as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

1. The Defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 150 million borrowed from the victim on April 7, 2017 and April 10, 2017 is the amount borrowed for the purpose of factory operation funds. However, the objective data proving that the Defendant used the said borrowed amount from the investigative agency to the court of the original trial is used as the Defendant’s assertion.