The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) had the ability to fully repay the borrowed money while engaging in the wholesale business at the time of the instant case; and (b) had the changed private road.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous by mistake.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant, as recorded in the judgment of the lower court, had the criminal intent of deceiving the victim, and therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit

① After having come to know at the marinadong, the Defendant introduced a person “L” through K, and was engaged in the instant wholesale business. However, L himself/herself did not receive KRW 150 million from around September 2014, and did not repay the borrowed money to the victim.

The argument is asserted.

However, the Defendant supplied a large amount of 150 million won or less to the Defendant.

The name of L was stated to the effect that L was unaware of L’s name (32 pages of trial record), and the fact that L was trying to recover the unpaid amount by filing a criminal complaint against L even after the above large amount of money was not paid, does not seem to be any circumstance that L was trying to recover the unpaid amount, and the Defendant was not in contact with K’s own business, which introduced L.

In full view of the fact that it appears that the defendant did not make a serious effort to identify L's location through K, etc. (the 32th page of the trial record), the above assertion by the defendant is difficult to be reliable.

② In addition, the Defendant, at the time of borrowing money from the injured party, had an amount equivalent to KRW 120 million to KRW 30 million, and additionally had assets equivalent to KRW 100 million, such as freezing and freezing.