The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the person was not employed at the time of the mistake of facts, the person was employed before and after the instant case, and thus, he had the intention to repay and the ability to repay.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, at the lower court, asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal on mistake of facts, and denied the instant crime, but all of the instant crimes were recognized on the third trial date of the lower court. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the ground that the Defendant had no intent to repay and ability to repay, taking into account the economic situation of the Defendant at the time of the instant case, and the fact that there was no substantial repayment for the victim’s recovery from damage until the decision of the lower court was rendered four

Examining the judgment of the court below and the trial court in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts alleged by the defendant.

[In light of the details of financial transactions and the copy of the name cards submitted by the Defendant at the trial, the Defendant appears to have received KRW 6,769,000 monthly salary from H from November 2013 to September 2014 through the account of the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter “I”). However, this would have a considerable interval between the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the victim (e.g., September 30, 2015), and such circumstance alone is insufficient to reverse the lower court’s decision.

In the Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion

Supreme Court on July 2015