The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (A) fraud, the Defendant was able to pay KRW 75 million to the victim from April 30, 2015 to July 30, 2015, on the following grounds: (i) around December 2014, KRW 25 million; (ii) around January 2015, KRW 43 million; and (iii) around January 2015, KRW 136 million from around April 2015 to January 2016; and (iv) paid KRW 75,95,000 to the victim from April 30, 2015 to July 30, 2015.

In addition, in April 2015, since the defendant started his business, the early business fund has not been much invested, so it should not be judged the defendant's ability to repay based on the point of time.

The defendant explained the situation that the victim is living in studio because there is almost little amount of money invested in the entire property with the initial business fund, and borrowed money from the damaged party, so there is no fact that the victim deceivings the victim.

(2) With regard to the crime No. 1-b. as indicated in the original judgment, the defendant had an intention to repay and a capability to repay.

From the end of May 2015, the victim had developed into a de facto marital relationship after living with the defendant, and had access to the defendant's office from time to time and sufficiently known the circumstances that the financial standing of the defendant is difficult, so there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim.

(3) The criminal facts of the original judgment are 1-C.

In relation to the paragraph, the victim was well aware that the business operated by the defendant is not well good, but the defendant was unaware of the victim because he lent a credit card to the defendant.

In addition, the details of the use indicated in the attached Table 2 of the crime list in the annexed Table 2 include the details of the use by the victim and the defendant together, and in the case of Nos. 63, the damaged person caused the goods that the damaged person would die to the defendant, so fraud is not established.

(4) The criminal facts of the original judgment are 1-D.

In relation to the paragraph, the defendant does not deceiving the victim.

another.