The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

It was true that the Defendant borrowed KRW 66,30,00 from the victim nine times in the charges of mistake of facts. However, the Defendant explained the purpose and purpose of borrowing funds to the victim, and disclosed all the fact that the Defendant was under pressure on funds. At the time of borrowing, the Defendant had the obligation to pay the construction cost, and thus, the Defendant has the ability to pay.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim, and the defendant has no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

In the facts charged, the victim and G’s legal statement in the facts charged No. 3 is not reliable, and the defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and ten months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

In the judgment of ex officio, the prosecutor applied for permission for modification of an indictment with the content of changing the facts charged as stated in Paragraph (1) of the facts charged as stated in Paragraph (1) of the same Article in the judgment below, and the subject of the judgment is changed by this court. As such, the facts charged modified as mentioned above are the concurrent crimes with the remaining facts of crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, there is a ground for ex officio reversal of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below.

Even if the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined.

As to the assertion of mistake of facts, in full view of the economic ability of the defendant at the time of borrowing money from the victim, the financial status of the defendant's management company, and the details of the victim's explanation about the financial status or loan use, the court below held that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged and acquired the money as stated in the facts charged.