The defendant shall be innocent.

A. misunderstanding of facts has changed the lending of L to C, and himself/herself was unaware of whether the above amount was a loan received from C until he/she pays the farmland diversion charge with L’s loan received from C, and was actually granted a loan to purchase and use the vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intention to commit fraud.

In addition, there was an intention to repay or ability to repay at the time of borrowing the loan.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On October 201, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case (1) the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “A” office operated by Hump truck C in Y, and the victim G engaged in installment financing agency business and automobile sales brokerage business in the name of F Co., Ltd., with the trade name, “C intended to purchase Hump truck with the purchase price of KRW 80,000,000 from the purchase price of the vehicle, and the principal and interest shall be repaid in installments between November 201 and 36 months.”

However, even if the Defendant received a loan from the victim, the Defendant planned to use the loan to perform a real estate civil engineering work in Pyeongtaek-si I, and thus did not have the intent or ability to purchase dump trucks from C or to establish a mortgage on dump trucks after purchase, and there was no economic ability to pay the amount to the victim in installments according to the agreement.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, transferred KRW 79,520,00 from the victim's capital to the deposit account in the name of the J, a staff member of C around October 25, 201.