A. When the Defendant borrowed money from C, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the money.

B. Even if it is not an unreasonable sentencing decision, the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the defendant was a bad credit holder before receiving money from the victim; (b) the defendant continued to engage in the business; (c) he borrowed money from the victim as business funds; and (d) the defendant used most of the money as living expenses and litigation expenses; and (e) the defendant paid approximately KRW 60 million to the seller through civil lawsuit in relation to the contract for the sale and purchase of the PC operation rights at the time; (b) the judgment of the civil lawsuit is a final judgment in the name of D, which is his/her cohabiting woman and his/her partner, and it is unclear whether the claim belongs solely to the defendant; (c) the defendant of the above civil lawsuit was filed a lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment against D with the above PC operation case and was rendered a favorable judgment in the appellate trial; and (d) the defendant borrowed money from the victim to the victim; and (d) the defendant did not contact the victim with the victim at the time of the lawsuit, but did not have to pay the victim the money.

Therefore, since the intention of acquiring the defendant is sufficiently recognized, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The Act on the Punishment of Crimes in this case is very important to determine the unfair sentencing argument.