A. The Defendant, as stated in the lower judgment, did not speak to the victim, and did not deceiving the victim.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the victim, consistently with the purport of the lower judgment, by the Defendant.

A statement is made, ② the Defendant and the victim borrowed KRW 17,30,000 from the damaged party on the instrument of the process of monetary consumption loan contract prepared on September 5, 2019 (Evidence No. 16-22). This appears to have been made to determine the amount of money borrowed by the Defendant who borrowed money from the damaged party, but did not repay the money from the damaged party as stated in the judgment of the court below. ③ The Defendant talks to the effect that the Defendant was working in the victim’s mother management company and was receiving a monthly wage (Evidence No. 29 pages), but the Defendant’s mother did not have any ability to pay the money from the damaged party even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party due to economic situation. ⑤ The Defendant appears to have used the money transaction in the virtual currency, unlike the Defendant’s statement, and the Defendant could sufficiently reverse the Defendant’s statement by deceiving the injured party as stated in the judgment of the court below in light of the substance of the aforementioned appeal and its reasoning.

Therefore, this part of the defendant.