The Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing the money stated in the instant facts charged from the victim.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as follows acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) even if the defendant's assertion was based on the defendant's assertion, the defendant had a debt equivalent to approximately KRW 300 million, such as card loan, loan, guarantee, etc. at the time of borrowing money from the victim; (ii) the defendant had a balance of KRW 70 million in the defendant's account at the time of borrowing money from the victim; and (iii) the defendant was found to have deposited a considerable amount of money in the defendant's account after borrowing; (iv) according to the defendant's account transaction details, the defendant's account did not maintain a balance of more than a certain amount; and (v) the defendant's account was not sufficient to recognize the defendant's self-reliance solely with the above deposit amount of KRW 300 million, and the defendant was not able to receive payment from the victim's account even though he deposited money as above; and (iii) the defendant was not able to receive payment from the defendant's account.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on its judgment.