The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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. (1) At the time of assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant intended to repay the borrowed money to the victim according to the following repayment plan, but failed to repay the borrowed money to the victim due to unexpected changes in the circumstances thereafter, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money at the time.

(A) At the time, the Defendant purchased three lots of land, including Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “I land”), from the victim, and tried to construct and sell the above land as factory site and to repay the money borrowed from the victim with the purchase price. At the time, the Defendant explained the method of repayment in detail to the victim, and the victim was well aware of it.

However, unlike expected, it is difficult to pay to the victim according to the promise on the wind where the sale is delayed or only part of the sale is sold.

(B) The Defendant sold the land outside K and seven parcels (hereinafter “K land”) at Kimhae-si and was scheduled to receive KRW 500 million from November 201, 201, but the remaining purchase and sale amount was anticipated to be paid at least KRW 500 million, but the Defendant failed to pay to the victim as agreed with the wind that the said payment was not received due to unexpected costs of reconstruction and provisional attachment.

(2) The loan certificate drawn up between the Defendant and the victim stated that “the right to collateral security is set up two times on I land for the victim,” but this purport was to give priority to the victim after the financial right, and thus, the victim did not set up a second priority to collateral security.

In addition, the defendant cannot be viewed as deceiving the victim.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case.

(b).