There is no word, and there was an intent and ability to return money received from the victim.

(M) The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment/two years of suspension of execution, community service 120 hours) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. The Defendant did not recognize the instant crime even in the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court examined N, a witness, E, an employee, who divided direct conversations with the victim G, G, and sentenced him/her to a guilty judgment on the Defendant on the ground that his/her statement consistent with the facts charged was reliable.

Even if a thorough examination of the records of this case is conducted, there are no special circumstances to deem that the above judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous, or exceptional circumstances to recognize that such a judgment of credibility is significantly unjustifiable, and according to the statements by the above witnesses, the facts charged of this case can be found guilty.

The above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

B. The fact that the amount of damage on the assertion of unfair sentencing is considerably high, that the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, that the defendant was punished for the same crime is disadvantageous to the defendant, and that the defendant deposited 165,923,238 won on behalf of the victim for the recovery of damage, and that the victim received it is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, if there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the sentence of the lower judgment, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc. of the Defendant, are taken into account, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.