All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not state to the effect that, at the time of borrowing money from the victim, the Defendant did not mean that “where 100 million won is paid, the Defendant would have to pay the money from Australia,” and at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had been able to pay the money borrowed from the victim because he continued to operate the hospital. Even if the Defendant said that the Defendant was the victim, the Defendant was able to pay the money to the Defendant in order to prevent the Defendant from being in default due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the bill, and thus, there was no causation between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s property disposal act. 2) The Defendant’s suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court on unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The one-year grace period of one-year imprisonment sentenced by the Prosecutor is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had no ability to repay to the Defendant at the time of borrowing 100 million won from the victim at the time of the instant crime, and that “if the Defendant borrowed 100 million won from the head of Australia, he/she will pay the Defendant according to the entry of the head of Australia.” In addition, the above recognized facts, and the Defendant was late at the time of attracting investment from Australia around October 2009, which was prior to the victim’s lending of money from the victim. According to the circumstances where the Defendant was aware of the difficulty of attracting investment, and the Defendant had consulted with the new bank, our bank, and new cooperation, etc. at the time of lending money, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had no ability to repay to the Defendant. The intent of defraudation can be recognized, and the victim should receive the money from the hospital in the operation of the Defendant.