The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of fact, with regard to the fact-finding fraud, the Defendant, who was the representative director of the victimized Company, was required to purchase the land to the E Corporation and establish a paper gambling plant, steel product plant, and melting metal plant. In the future, the Defendant would pay the said money because 20% of the price of the land would be a subsidy from the Hamyeong-gun. In addition, there was no deception by deceiving that he would give a subcontract for the construction of steel structure of the above project site, and there was no intention to pay and ability to pay at the time of the loan, and there was no criminal intent of defraudation.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. First of all, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is a witness I and D’s partial legal statement and investigation report attached to the lower court’s judgment’s witness I, and D’s factory drawings attached to the investigation report.

However, considering the following facts and circumstances admitted by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above evidence alone led the defendant to deception D, which was the representative director of the victimized company.

It is difficult to eliminate the reasonable doubt that there was no intention of repayment and ability to repay at the time of borrowing or borrowing.

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the fraud is not guilty because there is no proof of criminal facts. Thus, the defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

The witness I of the lower court stated that at the time, the Defendant delivered the basic drawing of the E Corporation planned by the Defendant to the victimized Company at the time of the first borrowing of KRW 5 million from February 5, 2016. However, when considering that the name of the preparation is the victimized Company, and the date of the preparation is deemed to have been completed three months after the above borrowing, the name of the preparation and the date of preparation are not consistent with I’s above statement.