The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On January 15, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 13.5 million from D with interest rate of KRW 3% per month, and on May 10, 2014, and with the maturity of payment period of KRW 13.5 million, the Defendant would repay the above borrowed money with the deposit money for recovery from the national forest management lawsuit.

weak facts are recognized.

However, the defendant's 1.5 million won received from D on January 7, 2014 is the wage of December 2013 received by the defendant, not the amount borrowed from D, but the defendant's working as management staff of Ctel.

In addition, on January 15, 2014, the Defendant had the intent or ability to repay the above borrowed money at the time of borrowing KRW 13.5 million from D.

The reason why the Defendant did not repay the above borrowed amount is that the Defendant incurred excessive expenses than the expenses initially planned due to unexpected rain, etc. in the course of restoring the N, and two parcels (hereinafter “the instant forest”).

Therefore, on July 2014, the Defendant: (a) received 64 million won from a state forest management lawsuit around the end of the end of the year; (b) most of the expenses for the restoration of the forest of this case were to be used for the restoration expenses for the forest of this case; and (c) as the Defendant was able to help D while working as the management personnel of Ctel at the time, it was understood that D also.

After that, the Defendant promised to pay the above borrowed money to D with the construction cost to be paid at the construction site of Dorasan-Ba, and understanding D also.

Therefore, the defendant is not allowed to have the intention of fraud.

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

2. Determination

A. On January 7, 2014, the lower court duly adopted and investigated as follows: (a) whether the Defendant was 13.5 million won received from D on January 15, 2014, as well as 1.5 million won borrowed from D on January 7, 2014; and (b) whether the Defendant borrowed 15 million won from D; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant drafted a self-loan certificate on January 7, 2014, stating that the Defendant borrowed 15 million won from D.