The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since the defendant is urgently required to pay the part payment due to the purchase of apartment by the victim of misunderstanding of facts, and the company's operational funds are also insufficient, he did not deceiving the purpose of use, and the defendant did not have the intention to acquire the borrowed money from the victim.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged is the defendant who serves as the management director of the corporation B.

Around March 5, 2015, the Defendant stated that “A victim D, who had worked as a managing director in the said company in the name of the said company, who received a large amount of loans in the name of the said company, was unable to pay the funds for the management of the company. If the company incurs money, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000,000,000.”

However, in fact, the defendant used money from the victim to repay obligations related to the part payments for the purchase and sale of apartment buildings, and around May 2014, the defendant had been in the amount equivalent to 2.5 billion won of the corporate guaranteed liability and 400 million won of personal debt incurred in the bankruptcy of the defendant, while there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim because there was no particular property.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 50 million won from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant’s wife F on the same day from the victim, and acquired it as the corporate operating fund.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged by taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

In full view of all the following circumstances that can be recognized by the records of the party deliberation, even if the defendant did not notify the victim that he would try to use the funds for apartment purchase that he would reside before borrowing the funds of this case from the victim.

Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, the defendant borrowed the above money from the victim with the intention to acquire it by fraud.