The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the following grounds is unreasonable.

(1) When considering the credit rating and the scale of debts of the defendant at the time of next employment, the defendant was found to have no intention or ability to repay.

It is difficult to see it.

(2) Even if the defendant did not have the ability to repay,

Even though the victim could not receive repayment in consideration of the personal interest of the defendant, it is not deceiving the defendant because he borrowed money.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant asserts to the same effect as the Defendant alleged in the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts.

The court below rejected the above assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified.

① Even based on the Defendant’s statement, it appears that the Defendant had assumed the obligation exceeding KRW 100 million to the lending company, KRW 40 million to H, KRW 500-60 million to J, KRW 30 million to J, and KRW 5 million to I (the investigation record 371-372 pages, KRW 375). The Defendant’s credit rating of the Defendant had not been maintained at least six classes prior to the month in which the Defendant borrowed money to the victim, and around July 2017, approximately four months after the next use, was classified as the Defendant’s bankruptcy forecast class as the subject of principal risk management.

Ultimately, the Defendant applied for the rehabilitation procedure for the following month (22 pages, 384 pages of investigation records). Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, it can be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to repay.

(2) If the defendant first uses the money borrowed from the victim as business funds, and thereafter his credit is restored, thereby making a loan to the victim.