The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, at the time of the Defendant’s lending of money from the damaged party, the construction of a main commercial building (hereinafter “instant project”) promoted in Hanam-si G was carried out well, and the Defendant’s failure to comply with the due date of repayment was due to external factors, such as real estate economic depression, etc. after the said borrowing, making it difficult to proceed with the instant project.

The Defendant, at the time of the instant project, could repay the borrowed money within the due date when only the PF loan was created, following the progress of the instant project.

As we think, there was no intention of fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of fraud against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles and the following circumstances, namely, ① the defendant promised to pay interest of 10% per annum at the time of borrowing KRW 400 million and to pay the victim within three months at the time of the borrowing of KRW 400 million, and the victim also agreed to pay the defendant at the court of the court below’s “if the defendant at the time was made that the money was inside the company and the money was returned three months after that date, then

was made.

(2) On January 17, 2012, upon promoting the instant project, C Co., Ltd., in which the Defendant had operated, entered into an agreement with K Co., Ltd. as a contractor, L Co., Ltd. as a PF adviser, and entered into a business agreement related to the instant project implementation by designating L Co., Ltd. as the PF adviser, and I (at the time, the head of the L Co., Ltd. team and the director of the L Co., Ltd. at the time) determined that “the instant project would be sold for good business feasibility,” and it was determined that financial institutions would also grant PF loans.

“On the other hand, even if I’s testimony was based on the I’s above testimony, the market situation at the time was not good and the PF loan was made after the preparation of the Convention.