A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and 30 million won that the Defendant received from the injured party is not a loan, but an investment loan, and even if a loan is made, there was no possibility to repay the loan, thereby deceiving the injured party.

Nevertheless, the court below found the facts charged guilty by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is excessively unreasonable compared to the extent of the Defendant’s responsibility.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the ground that, in light of various facts or circumstances acknowledged by evidence, the defendant's received KRW 30 million, not investment, was a loan, and at the time, the defendant had no intent or ability to repay it. In a thorough comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and the evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including main numbers) submitted by the defendant at the court below does not interfere with the finding of guilty of the facts charged.

There is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

B. The lower court, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not reflect the Defendant; (b) the amount of damage was not repaid; (c) the Defendant did not want the victim’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim; and (d) the Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; and (b) the period of punishment determined within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines according to the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines.