The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. When the Defendant borrowed the instant money from the victim, the Defendant had a large number of curios with high value as a fact-finding, and thus was able to repay the instant money borrowed from the victim, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, since he purchased the said money with a fact-finding curios borrowed from the victim.

The failure to repay the instant money is due to difficulties in selling curios, and it is not the Defendant’s intention to obtain the instant money from the beginning.

Despite the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant borrowed a large amount of money of KRW 465 million from the victim and did not or did not have sufficient means to repay the money, and that he purchased the money borrowed from the victim or any curios with considerable economic value in China, and that the defendant acquired the money by deception is also sufficiently recognized.

1) At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant’s economic situation and the Defendant’s speech and behavior (1) around the time of each borrowing of the instant money from the victim, there was no amount of tax paid by the Defendant in relation to the sales of curios sales business, and there was little revenue, and there was little cash in possession, and there was no choice but to engage in monetary transactions with the victim by using a passbook in the name of the victim under the name of the victim with bad credit standing (Article 157, 303-314 of the Investigation Records, the third trial record of the instant case). Therefore, there is a high room to deem that there was no economic situation (2).