The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant allegation of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant had property and pension income such as real estate, so there was sufficient ability to repay, and there was an intention to repay.

In addition, the amount that the victim did not pay and recover the credit card price of the defendant at the time is only 4,417,524 won.

Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (fine 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s judgment, the following facts may be recognized. (A) On September 7, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 28,000,000 from the victim and repaid the Defendant’s credit card payment, and the said borrowed money was to be recovered by the Defendant’s credit card - the card - the Defendant’s credit card - and the victim decided to recover the borrowed money until September 2012.

B) Although the victim recovered the amount of KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant’s credit card to receive cash service, but did not recover the amount of KRW 8,000,000 including the fee due to the lack of credit card use. C) around September 2012, the victim sought the Defendant’s house to receive the unpaid amount, but the Defendant did not contact with the Defendant at the time of the investigation into the instant case, but the Defendant had real estate and pension income. However, the real estate had already been provided as security for loans. (2) At the time of the Defendant’s acquisition of real estate and pension income, the Defendant had the ability to repay, as well as had expressed his intent to repay. However, the real estate owned by the Defendant was already provided as security by the Defendant.