The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the defendant misunderstanding of facts borrowed KRW 40 million from the injured party, but there was no deception of the injured party as stated in the facts charged at the time, nor did he borrow money with the intention of defraudation.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake.

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

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

Of the facts charged by the prosecutor in the trial of the court below, the part on the 6th and 9th sentence of the judgment of the court below on the charges that “However, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the interest and principal to the victim within the due date, since the operation of an agricultural product processing factory at the time, the financial situation of the defendant had aggravated, and the revenue of the Dora was likely to consume the above money for the purchase of domestic products, such as domestic gymal and Dora, and other expenses necessary for the operation of the factory, etc., and even if import and sale of the Chinese gymn and Dora in China, it was not possible to expect the profit as explained by the victim.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment” was filed, and this Court permitted this, and the subject of the adjudication was changed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is to be examined below.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, i.e., the victim tried to import the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance.