The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Although the Defendant had financial ability to repay at the time of the loan of this case and did not intend to obtain money, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Circumstances acknowledged by the court below, such as the defendant's partial court decision and prosecutor's statement, D's statement in the court below and prosecutor's office's statement, complaint statement, loan certificate, etc., which were lawfully adopted and examined by the court below. In particular, the land in the family of Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do, which was offered by the defendant as security to the victim at the time of borrowing, was awarded a successful bid of KRW 63 million by attaching it to an auction. Even if the market price is KRW 16.2 million, which is the first sale price, the first time, there was a mortgage claim of KRW 39,00,000 and KRW 60 million with priority over the victim at the time, it was difficult to expect the defendant to fully repay the debt to the victim. ② The defendant was unable to fully repay part of the loan amount for more than two years after borrowing, and even if the defendant was to adjust the criminal complaint on the condition of withdrawal of KRW 40,000,000 on June 20, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Although the defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing can sufficiently recognize that he borrowed without the ability to repay, the defendant's ability to repay and did not reflect his ability to repay, and did not recover from damage to the trial, the court below's punishment did not have any criminal power, and deceiving the defendant.