A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant received KRW 98 million from the victim E (hereinafter “the instant money”) was not a loan, but a loan. Even if the instant money was the loan, the Defendant had had the ability to repay and intent to repay from the damaged party at the time of receiving the loan. However, the Defendant did not have the intent to defraud the victim by deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 16, 2013, when the Defendant received the instant money from the injured party, he/she borrowed KRW 100 million to the Defendant on September 16, 2013 and the Defendant borrowed the instant money on the commission of the Defendant and the injured party.

The defendant shall pay the principal by September 15, 2014.

The interest on the above principal shall be determined at the rate of 24% per annum, and shall be paid on the 222th of each month.

“Preparation of a fair deed of monetary consumption and lending contract,” ② both the Defendant and the victim consistently stated from an investigative agency to the court of the court below that “the victim lent the instant money to the Defendant.” The Defendant stated at an investigative agency that the victim borrowed KRW 100 million to the Defendant and subsequently deducted KRW 2 million from the prior interest. ③ The Defendant deposited KRW 200,000 per month to the victim according to the said monetary consumption and lending contract, and ④ the victim deposited the instant money as interest to the Defendant from October 16, 2013 to September 16, 2015.