A. As to the acquittal portion of mistake of facts, in full view of the fact that the Defendant used the purchase price of the building that was dried by the victim, and that the Defendant had serious financial difficulties in the company run at the time, it can be recognized that the Defendant acquired 30 million won without the intent or ability to repay the victim by deceiving the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On March 6, 2012, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) the victim F was transferred KRW 30,00 from the victim’s bank account in the name of E company; (c) on March 6, 2012, the Defendant was in a hostile state; and (d) the Defendant was in a state with no capacity to repay money even after borrowing money as above; (b) the lower court, upon deceiving the victim and deceiving the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that, at the time of the loan construction of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”), the Defendant did not have the intent to acquire money from the proceeds of distribution after the completion of the new construction of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”); and (c) the victim did not have the ability to obtain money from the victim; and (d) the Defendant did not have any other capacity to prove that the aforementioned part of the facts charged was insufficient to prove that the Defendant was not guilty.

3 Judgment of the Court.