The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Since the Defendant had sufficient intent to repay and ability to repay money at the time of borrowing money, a deception cannot be recognized.

2) Since the amount actually received by the Defendant is the amount obtained by deducting the interest and fee in advance from the borrowed amount, the amount equivalent to the interest and fee in advance shall be deducted from the acquired amount.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the first instance court as to whether a deception was recognized, it can be recognized that the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not intend to offer a restaurant operating right as security, could have deceiving the victim as if he did so

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) If the defendant fails to pay the borrowed money at an investigative agency, the victim shall transfer his/her right to operate the restaurant.

It stated that money would have been lent because of its lending, and that money would not have been lent in the absence of the condition that the restaurant operating rights would be transferred.

② The Defendant stated at an investigative agency to the effect that he did not think that he would not transfer the restaurant business even though he did not repay the borrowed money, alleging that the transfer of the restaurant business right is formal.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the first instance court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant received the full amount of the borrowed money for which the Defendant did not deduct interest and fees.

There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

This part of the defendant's argument is justified.

① On August 6, 2012, the Defendant, from the investigative agency to the court, obtained prior interest and commission KRW 11 million out of the borrowed amount of KRW 100 million, was 89,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from August 20, 2012.