The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, despite the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts as to borrowing KRW 20 million from the injured party (hereinafter “the borrowed money of this case”) did not have any criminal intent to obtain fraud or to obtain fraud. Of that, even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from around September 10, 2016 had already been repaid, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (four months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The records revealed as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant himself/herself had difficulty in operating “D multiples” through a written statement submitted in the original court; (b) the amount of loans and guarantees granted to others exceeds KRW 100 million; and (c) the Defendant was economically unable to do so.

(2) In light of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of borrowing the instant loan, voluntarily transferred the business of “DDam” including the said deposit and premium to J around April 26, 2017, even though he/she prepared a power of attorney to delegate the deposited money and premium to the victim when he/she borrowed money from the damaged party on May 2, 2016, the date and time of borrowing the instant loan, the Defendant appears to have failed to repay the instant loan at the gambling place; and (3) the Defendant, at the time of borrowing the instant loan from the damaged party, had the intent to acquire the instant loan by defraud the victim at his/her discretion, in light of the fact that: (a) around April 26, 2017, he/she voluntarily transferred the instant deposit and premium to J.

There is no room to regard it.

On the other hand, on September 10, 2016, the Defendant already repaid KRW 10 million on October 21, 2016.

However, as set forth in the court below, it is reasonable to view that the above KRW 10 million was the name of the Defendant’s reimbursement for KRW 3 million borrowed from the injured party on September 7, 2016 and KRW 7 million paid by the injured party on October 1, 2016 on behalf of the Defendant’s card payment.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(b).