The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant had the intent to repay and the ability to repay 40 million won at the time of borrowing 40 million won from the victim E on January 17, 2007, and there was no intention to acquire by deception.

In addition, since the victim was well aware of the fact that the defendant's ability to repay was insufficient at the time of lending the above 40 million won to the defendant, the victim could not be deemed to have borrowed the above money by mistake due to the defendant's deception.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts. In other words, at the time of borrowing 40 million won from the victim E on January 17, 2007, the defendant had already borrowed 185 million won in total over several occasions from May 2006 to April 2007. The defendant borrowed 2.46 million won in total from the victim until April 2007 after borrowing 40 million won, and the defendant was merely 54.6 million won in total from the victim's repayment until the date of borrowing 40 million won (the defendant had been paid 1.7 million won in total over five times from 2009 to 2012). Since the defendant had a bad credit standing, he had no property under his name from May 17, 2006 to 200, and the defendant had no real estate borrowed 1.45 million won in his name from 201 to 201.