2. The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant could be recognized that he borrowed money from the victim without an intention or ability to repay money, and, in full view of the fact that the defendant stated that he had made it the business of "tts" in order to partially cover the monthly rent of the office, and that the defendant did not notify the victim in advance at the time of closing the office after receiving the deposit of the office's lease deposit, and that the defendant did not pay money to the victim, and that he closed the office without an active effort to recover money from the office of the defendant where the gambling was established without paying money, and that he did not know the fact that he borrowed money from the victim without an intention or ability to repay money.

According to the records, the victim stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that the defendant would receive the deposit at the time of borrowing the money from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the victim sent to the defendant a statement to the effect that "the defendant would receive the refund of the deposit, even if he would receive the refund of the deposit, and did not repay the loan of this case after receiving the refund of the deposit." The victim's statement is consistent with the victim's investigative agency and the court of the court below's above statement, and it is consistent with the contents of the above content certification. Thus, the victim's statement that the defendant decided to receive the refund of the deposit, and thus, the defendant