A. Defendant: The lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged despite the fact that the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay KRW 30 million to the victim and did not have the intention to defraudation.

B. Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) against the Defendant is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, on November 5, 2012, on the ground that it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake of facts.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

When the victim first rejected the Defendant’s first introduction, and her finites that he was in need of salary, she first lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant (Evidence Nos. 46-47, 84, and 35-36 of the trial record). The Defendant borrowed 30 million won to the Defendant who was unaware of the Defendant without any security of KRW 30 million due to the fact that the victim had had no transactional relationship with the Defendant when she had known of the Defendant’s credit standing, she did not lend KRW 30 million to the Defendant (Evidence No. 49 of the evidence record). At the time of this case, the Defendant did not provide the Defendant with a loan of KRW 20 million until 15,000,000 to the Defendant (Evidence No. 49 of the evidence record), despite having borne a credit obligation of KRW 200,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant (Evidence No. 1568 of the evidence record).