A. The victim C by mistake of fact has lent 43 million won to the defendant under each subparagraph, and thus, the defendant has taken money by deceiving the victim.

Although it cannot be said that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts charged in this case on a different premise.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact: (i) the victim filed a complaint including the total of KRW 19.5 million on April 26, 2015, which was loaned to the Defendant in addition to the amount of damage at the time of filing the complaint, KRW 19.5 million on April 26, 2015, KRW 5 million on May 27, 2015, and KRW 19.5 million on June 10, 2015, but the police borrowed KRW 19.5 million on to assist the Defendant; and (ii) the victim stated that the complaint was withdrawn in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court that the Defendant would pay the amount immediately.

As stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the sum of KRW 43 million was lent on three occasions.

In fact, the victim stated that he borrowed the above three-time loans at a high rate, and ③ the Defendant borrowed 43 million won in total from the injured party in 2016 on a three-monthly basis. If the injured party borrowed 43 million won in each subparagraph of the Defendant, the Defendant could be found to have taken full account of the following facts: (a) by deceiving the injured party as described in the facts charged, and then borrowing 433 million won in total from the injured party on three occasions, the Defendant borrowed 433 million won in total.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court held that the Defendant was an initial offender who had no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case.