The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) purchased E land from I; (b) he purchased the land from I; and (c) I tried to pay the principal down payment by cancelling the second priority collective security right of KRW 150 million with the upper limit of the claim amount; and (d) additionally, he obtained a loan of KRW 100 million with the above land as security; (c) however, I did not obtain an additional loan without obtaining an additional loan from a third party on the wind where the second priority collective security right is established; and (d) there was no intention to obtain money from the victim at the time of receiving money from the third party.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the above in the trial, and the lower court determined that the Defendant was fully aware of the intent to obtain money from the injured party at the time of receiving the money by taking account of the circumstances in the judgment that are recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and in particular, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant consumeds full amount of 3 days after receiving money from the injured party, and as long as it is not completely used as "land purchase cost" as the use notified to the injured party at the time of the next use, it constitutes deception of the use in the borrowed money itself, and thus, there is an error of mistake of fact as alleged by the defendant, regardless of whether there was an agreement with the I. who argued by the defendant, as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts is without merit.

B. We examine the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, and the Defendant’s payment of additional KRW 29 million in the first instance, and most of the damages were recovered, and the arguments and records of the instant case are revealed.