The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not borrow money from the victim C, and the Defendant did not deceiving C, and at the time of the instant case, there was no intention to acquire money because the Defendant had sufficient means to repay the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On July 20, 201, the Defendant of the instant facts charged stated that, at the siren office operated by the victim C in Jinju-si, Jinju-si, the Defendant is required to pay down payment, etc. to the victim in order to obtain apartment sales from the Haak-gu, Chungcheongnam-do. The Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million,00,000,000,000,000 won.”

However, the defendant was asked to lend 10 million won from D, who is a bad credit holder, and was thought to have borrowed money from D again, but did not speak such fact to the victim. If D, who is a bad credit holder, did not pay the above money, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay it to the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 9.2 million won from the victim, deducting 4-month advance interest and 8 million won from the post office account under the name of the Defendant on the same day.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

C. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the appellate court’s records, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which led C to the deception that the Defendant would have borrowed money from C again to D, but did not express such fact.

It is not enough to prove that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intention of defraudation, and it is different from others.