A. Defendant 1’s failure to pay a loan by a mistake of fact is not a construction executor’s failure to obtain a permit, and it does not have the intent or ability to pay a loan from the time of the loan. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case by taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as indicated in the judgment, namely, ① purchasing dump truck before the Defendant purchased dump truck and did not have sufficient financial conditions; ② it appears that there was no profit-making business using the dump truck from the time he purchased dump truck to the time six months have elapsed since the purchase of dump season; ③ it is not found up to the present time; ④ there was no evidence from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court; ④ there was no evidence from the Defendant who leased dump season to the court of the lower court; ⑤ the Defendant was not paid a proper rent from I; ⑤ the Defendant was unable to open dump truck under his own name, and the Defendant opened dump truck on behalf of the Defendant in connection with the illegal game site at the time, and ② there was no property from the Defendant.

B. In addition to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below's conviction, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, namely, the defendant argued that the defendant leased the digging pool to I, but the defendant argued that he leased the digging pool to H, a staff member of the I and P, who is a staff member of the I and P, was the same as " Q" in the defendant's name, and the credibility of the statement seems to be low, and ② H sent it to the defendant by informing or affixing a photo of the digging pool.