The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for four months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. As to the primary facts charged, Defendant A’s intent to pay interest of KRW 39 million is acknowledged. However, considering the following: (a) Defendant A’s primary facts charged: (b) it appears that Defendant A had no intent or ability to pay the interest of KRW 39 million by deceiving the victim in the same manner as indicated in the primary facts charged; and (c) Defendant B had no capacity to pay the interest of KRW 95 million by borrowing KRW 10 million from the victim; and (d) Defendant A did not have the ability to pay the interest of KRW 50 million by borrowing KRW 95 million from the victim; and (e) Defendant A’s financial status, etc., Defendant A appears to have taken into account the following facts: (a) it appears that Defendant A had no capacity to instigate and obtain money from the victim; and (b) Defendant B had no capacity to pay the interest of KRW 500,000 (one million prior to borrowing KRW 10 million and five million; and (b) Defendant B’s intent or ability to obtain money from the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the primary charges is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. In light of the victim’s statement, the record of hospitalization, and the details of deposit, etc., the victim was in a mental and physical state at the time of lending money to the Defendants, and the Defendants could have clearly perceived the mental and physical disorder of the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the conjunctive charges on the contrary premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

(a) relevant legal principles;