A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the fact that the Defendant provided that “The victim voluntarily lent KRW 10 million to the victim who was in a business relationship with the victim due to lack of living expenses,” and that the victim voluntarily lent KRW 3 million to the victim at the time of borrowing money from the victim, “the mother who was hospitalized does not have any hospital expenses,” or “the Defendant would make payment by selling the loan in a single week,” and therefore there was no fact that the Defendant did not commit deception against the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) the victim stated that the victim: (a) “the mother would sell in one week loan to the hospital without any hospital expenses; and (b) would sell money to the victim; and (c) the Defendant would lend 3 million won to the victim; and (d) the Defendant stated that the Defendant would have been sentenced to the Defendant’s mother at the time of borrowing money from the victim from the police; and (e) the Defendant’s de facto spouse, E, the Defendant’s de facto spouse, was set up as a kind of loan; (c) at the time of the crime of this case, the Defendant was partly in accordance with the victim’s statement. At the time of the crime of this case, the Defendant was liable for the Defendant’s total 48 million won to the lender; (d) the Defendant did not have the ability to borrow money; and (d) the Defendant was also able to borrow money without any special revenue; and (d) the Defendant was living with the Defendant.

E was owned, and even.