A. (1) Defendant (1) has borrowed the instant money from the victim, but he/she will pay it within three months.

The judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's deception on the ground that the defendant did not definitely conclude that the removal of the redevelopment or reconstruction zone would be ordered, but there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

(2) The court below's six-month punishment of imprisonment imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The defendant's six-month imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that there was a deception against the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) there is no reason for the Defendant to pay the Defendant with a heavy amount of money in excess of his/her obligation; (b) the Defendant borrowed money from R other than the victim under the same method; and (c) the Defendant appears to have been believed to have been in the position to exercise a large influence in the process of selecting the removed company, although the Defendant was

In light of the record, the fact-finding of the court below was justified and its fact-finding of the defendant has already been 1.5 million won or more, for which it is unclear whether to repay the amount of 200 million won or more, without collateral. R also lent 200 million won to the defendant on Nov. 20, 2008 through the testimony of the court below to the end of December of the year when the defendant lent KRW 200 million to the defendant on Nov. 20, 2008, which was 10 million won before the crime of this case.

In addition, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there was a deception is clearly stated to the effect that "" was clearly stated.