The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of borrowing money from a misunderstanding victim, he was operating a restaurant and was endeavoring to repay money with good operation.

Although it is difficult to borrow money and make it difficult for 8 months after borrowing money to pay part of it to the victim, it does not receive the full amount of the principal and interest.

In addition, there was an ability or intention to file legal proceedings only in default of full payment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of factual mistake: (i) the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the injured party until September 30, 2013 due date; (ii) additionally borrowed KRW 10 million from the two months after the end of the period of reimbursement; and (iii) additionally stated the same in the loan certificate; and (iv) even according to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant used the money borrowed from the injured party in excess of the total assets to repay any other debt; and (iv) the victim did not have any outstanding source of repayment or revenue with loans from the injured party in excess of the total assets; and (iii) the Defendant did not pay the principal and interest of KRW 36 million to the injured party on July 4, 2015; and (iv) the Defendant did not have paid the principal and interest to the lessee up to December 30, 2015.

However, in full view of the fact that the victim's provisional attachment was around June 2016 at the time when the victim took place in the defendant's office, the time when the victim took up provisional attachment, and that it was around June 2016, the defendant deceivings the victim without the intention or ability to pay the money normally even if the defendant borrowed the money from the victim.