According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it is insufficient to conclude that the defendant had no intention to repay money from the time of borrowing the money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, solely on the fact that the defendant did not have the ability to repay the above this Decree merely because the defendant merely borrowed a part of the cash cash to the above this Decree that he borrowed the money from the above this Decree, and the defendant did not have any intention to repay money from the time of borrowing the money, even though the defendant's property status is equivalent to the amount of the debt at the time of borrowing and the amount of domestic debt was somewhat high, since the defendant's debt was a company or a matrimonial relationship working for the defendant at the time of borrowing the money, and the obligation of the defendant was not an imminent state of performing his obligation as well as that the defendant had the ability to mobilize funds since he engaged in the financial industry at the time of borrowing the money, and there is no other error of law of misunderstanding of facts

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)