The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment) of the lower court is too unhued and unjust.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant, at the time of borrowing KRW 80 million from the victim, did not intend to acquire economic benefits by deceiving the victim at the time of borrowing, and the Defendant’s failure to repay the said money to the victim was an economic difficulty due to unexpected circumstances at the time of borrowing. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

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

A. The lower court’s judgment, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, held that the Defendant caused the victim to “F” in the Ecomel underground in Seocho-si, Seosan-si.

The main points of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the main points of this case”) found guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the main points of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the main points of this case”) did not have any intent or ability to repay even if it had taken over obligations equivalent to KRW 80,000 on the pretext of the

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as follows, the above judgment of the court below is justified and it is not recognized that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is rejected.

① The Defendant asserts that “The amount of KRW 50 million, out of KRW 80 million borrowed from the victim, can be repaid as a security deposit.” As such, the Defendant considered that the amount of actual repayment would be KRW 30 million.”

However, the above KRW 80 million borrowed by the defendant

The summary of this case, regardless of whether it appears to be the key key premium or as the facility cost.

It is separate from the security deposit of the lease contract on the main point.