The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of borrowing the instant loan, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay KRW 100 million borrowed from the victim, as he owned real estate located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul and real estate in the name of the Defendant’s wife, and real estate equivalent to approximately KRW 3,1770,000,000 in the market price, such as land located in Gangwon-gu Telecommunication, etc., and thus, there was no intention to

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by clarifying the reasons in detail not more than the third party of the lower judgment.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s determination, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the ability to repay to the Defendant at the time of borrowing the instant loan, and at least there is a criminal intent to obtain the Defendant by fraud, so the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

① At the time of the loan of this case, the right to collateral security in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government land and building located in the Seocho-gu (the market price of the Defendant’s assertion is approximately KRW 1.75 billion), which is the sum of the maximum debt amount, KRW 3.28 billion, and KRW 2.75 billion, which is the sum of the maximum debt amount, in the land located in Gangwon-do T (the market price of the Defendant’s assertion is KRW 70 million), seems to have never been the substantial property value or collateral value as the right to collateral security was respectively established.

② As to the economic situation at the time, the Defendant voluntarily stated in the investigative agency that “the business was too difficult at the time to borrow money from the victim” and “the debt at the time of the loan around November 2009, at the time of the instant loan, was KRW 700 or KRW 800 million.”

(Evidence Records 149, 320 pages). (3) The Defendant, as stated in the judgment below, shall most.