The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant faithfully repaid interest on the 10th day of each month on the 20th day of the month, there was no intention to commit fraud at the time of borrowing KRW 50 million.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that found guilty on the part of fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the Defendant, at the time of borrowing KRW 50 million from the victim around July 30, 2013, at the time of borrowing KRW 50 million from the victim, the Defendant was fully aware of the Defendant’s fraud, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the e station and F apartment owned in the name of the Defendant and his wife did not have sufficient means to secure a reasonable amount of security; (b) the Defendant only partially repaid interest; and (c) the Defendant did not repay the principal on July 29, 2014, the due date for repayment of principal; and (c) the Defendant also recognized this part of the facts charged in the prosecution and the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is unfavorable that the sum of the instant fraud and embezzlement amounts up to KRW 100 million is a large amount of money to be determined on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

However, in light of the favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s confession of the embezzlement part among the crimes of this case and the fact that the Defendant violated his mistake, that most of the money was paid during the trial, that the victims and the Defendant agreed to do so, that there was no previous convictions, and that other favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable.

3...