Defendant

The appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is well known at the time when a victim E lends the instant money to the Defendant’s economic condition or circumstances, the Defendant borrowed money (hereinafter “the instant loan”) with the knowledge that he would use it as a repayment of high interest liability and business fund, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have taken money by deceiving the victim.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court duly adopted and examined the allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine as follows. ① The Defendant borrowed the instant loan from the victim several times from October 22, 2012 to January 25, 2013, and stated that “it would pay interest between 3 through 5 copies per month” and the victim also lent money to the Defendant for the purpose of obtaining interest income (Evidence No. 10-14, 26, 69). ② The Defendant and the victim did not explicitly specify the period for repayment of the instant loan, except that the Defendant and the victim agreed on January 25, 2013 at KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 to KRW 2,000,000,000 from January 25, 2013, the victim stated that “The Defendant did not specifically have the period for repayment on account of the Defendant’s payment on KRW 301,000,000,000,000.

2. In addition to the payment of interest of KRW 700,00,000 as of 18.7 billion, the payment of principal and interest has not been made up to the present date (No. 44 of the trial record, No. 3-9 of the evidence record), and ④ The business of renting used machinery operated by the Defendant from October 2010.