The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. On September 9, 2010, the actual contents of the misunderstanding of facts are as follows: (a) not the defendant but the company that the defendant operated borrowed KRW 300 million from the victim.

At the time of this, construction companies run by the Defendant had the ability to repay the remainder of the sales price by 400 households, construction price claims, etc. However, on October 14, 2010, the maturity of the J apartment loans due to the due date is delayed due to the wind that delayed the extension of the maturity of the PF loans by J apartment units immediately after the due date, which led to the default of payment. Accordingly, at the time of the above lending of money, the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay

It can not be seen as a crime, and it is not recognized as a crime of fraud.

On August 29, 2012, the actual substance of the tax invoice is that the Defendant held half of the shares in P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the “Co., Ltd.”) and was able to receive investment funds and earnings at the time of completion of the construction project of an officetel in which P was implemented, and thus, the Defendant was sufficiently able to repay. However, due to the problem of the development of the treatment industry, the Defendant was unable to pay the victim’s money.

Therefore, this part also did not have the intent or ability to repay to the defendant.

It can not be seen as a crime, and it is not recognized as a crime of fraud.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) On September 9, 2010, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the following facts and circumstances revealed by the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts were fully known, as indicated in the facts charged, that the Defendant enticed the victim of the ability to repay the due date and was sufficiently aware that the Defendant could not repay the due date.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① On September 9, 2010, the victim sent money to the account (D account) designated by the defendant upon receiving a request from the defendant to lend money.