The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of mistake, the Defendant was running the mobile phone case and the gramogle consignment business at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant borrowed money from the victim during the process of expanding the business, but only failed to repay the borrowed money to the victim because the business was not well operated, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged despite the absence of the intention of deception, there is an error of mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (five months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim, at the time of the instant case, lent money to the investigative agency, i.e., the victim, who was operating the Defendant’s office at the time of the instant case, with the Defendant’s “on-line case business,” with a view to having the Defendant make payment without a mold by the end of October, if the funds are insufficient.

The specific statement was made to the effect that “The Defendant was in a bad credit position after obtaining a total of KRW 20 million from the bank around 2010 at the time of the instant case,” and the Defendant borrowed KRW 60 million from Dong Chang-in and KRW 5 million from Dong Chang-in, the Defendant borrowed KRW 60 million in total from Dong Chang-in and KRW 5 million from Dong Chang-in.

The Defendant made a statement to the effect that “Evidence No. 1, 169-170 pages of evidence” (Evidence No. 1, 169-170 pages). However, even if the Defendant engaged in the mobile phone case and glass consignment sales business at the time of the instant case, it appears that the Defendant would have made very infinite whether or not he/she would have been able to pay the amount borrowed from the victim by October 2014 due to the excessive amount of other debt as above, and ③ the Defendant received from the victim on October 10, 2014 at an investigative agency for some son of the money received from the victim on October 10, 2014, and listen to the speech that it is difficult from his/her creativeJ on October