A. According to evidence submitted by a mistake-finding prosecutor, F did not have the intent or ability to repay money at the time when the defendant borrowed money from the victim, and the defendant was found to have obtained money by deceiving the victim without notifying it to the victim although he was well aware or known of such circumstances, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the crime of fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the instant case’s assertion of mistake of facts, at the time of borrowing money from the complainant on December 10, 2017, the Defendant stated, “If the Defendant lends 15 million won to the F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F FF for the interest of every month, the F would be paid KRW 1 million as the monthly interest, and within three months, and the complainant paid the F F for the immediately 15 million won. The Defendant used the said money, the Defendant received money from F and intended to repay the money to the complainant.”

According to the above facts, in order to recognize the criminal intent of defraudation by the defendant, not only the fact that the defendant had no capacity or intent of repayment at the time of borrowing, but also F at the time of borrowing the loan had no capacity or intent of repayment, and it should also be recognized that the defendant was aware of such circumstance

(3) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the basis of the following facts: (a) if the defendant did not have the ability or intent to pay his own money, and if the F does not have the capacity or intent to pay his money, the defendant can receive money from F and repay it to the complainant; and (b) if the F did not have any capacity or intent to pay it, the defendant would be able to think that he would have obtained money from F and would be able to receive money from the complainant and pay it to the complainant. In light of the records of this case, the F would have