The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as a fine of KRW 15 million) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim by citing false facts, and at the time of borrowing KRW 50 million from the victim, the Defendant or the Defendant’s agricultural company B, which was run by the Defendant or the Defendant, owned the facilities, inventory goods, etc. of the H in Osan-si (hereinafter “H”) and owned the obligation to pay KRW 50 million to the Defendant, who is an operator of the JJ (hereinafter “J”) at the early time.

(2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated. The court below found that the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the facts charged in this case was difficult to ascertain the specific details and value of the defendant's property, such as marina facilities, inventory goods, and claims against M, which are alleged by the defendant on the part of the defendant, and that the above marina facilities and inventory goods could not be sold separately within a short period of time at the time of this case as assets necessary for H operation, and M could not be commercialized because it was difficult for the defendant to sell separately within a short period of time at the time of this case, and M could not pay goods to the trader at the time of this case. Thus, it appears that the defendant could not easily recover his claim from M at the time of this case, and that the defendant also was refined from M around that time of this case.