The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In fact, the Defendant did not deceiving the use of the borrowed money from the injured party at the time of borrowing the money, and the Defendant transferred 70% of the shares in the “V” (hereinafter “V”) to the injured party, and provided the above company’s operating funds with KRW 197 million from April 16, 2013 to May 13, 2013, and operated by the Defendant.

V was in possession of stock of a Handphone in an amount equivalent to 400,574,400 won purchased from AB, and the Defendant operated.

W was in possession of net stock of the amount of 103,009,440 won, which was purchased from the LAB, and owned real estate in the name of the defendant's wife. In light of the fact that the defendant was in possession of real estate in the name of the defendant's wife, he had intent to repay or sufficient means to repay money from the damaged person at the time of borrowing

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is objectively apparent that the financial situation was inferior according to the balance between the account held in the Defendant’s name at the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, and that the Defendant operated the money.

V is difficult to view that the value of the company reaches KRW 200 million due to the situation where the liabilities exceed the capital, and the defendant operated.

W’s National Treasury refund claims amounting to KRW 10,300,940, and the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant paid to the victim, and that the Defendant did not fully pay the amount despite having written a written statement of intent, and the investigative agency had tried to avoid the obligation of repayment, not the borrowed money, and that the defrauded was recognized.