A. In fact, the Defendant had intention to perform the contract at the time of entering into the acquisition contract with the victim of the instant “E” restaurant and had the ability to perform the contract normally, so there was no deception of the victim as stated in the facts charged, and there was no intention to defraud the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the argument of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) the victim believed the victim's speech that the victim did not have a tenant on the loan offered as a security and did not request additional security. Such victim's statement has credibility as it is consistent with the specific investigation agency to the court below's decision, and the witness G statement of the court below conforms to this, and (ii) the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation after the date of the payment of the purchase price of the restaurant of this case from the date of the above application, and the number of creditors against the defendant was 25 million won in total, and the amount of debt was 380 million won in total, and most of the debt was occurred before the restaurant of this case; (iii) the defendant prepared the acquisition price of the restaurant of this case, changed several times to the time and amount of debt to I, and there is no reasonable ground to acknowledge the defendant's mistake of facts as alleged in the facts charged, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of facts.

(b).