A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of deceiving 17.64 million won from the victim D, although the amount that the defendant received from the victim D was merely about 6 million won and the above amount was merely equivalent to that of the defendant D, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the prosecutor’s statement protocol as to the prosecutor’s statement as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant would pay KRW 30 million to the victim from “F” in the “F” of the victim D’s operation in the first and second order of July 2015, because the Defendant gains a large amount of profit from the auction of real estate, so that he/she may borrow money under the name of expenses incurred in the auction and other living expenses.

“Along with the false statement, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant received a total of KRW 1,764,00 from around 195 to February 7, 2016, a total of KRW 195 times from 195 to 1,764,00.

B. In light of the following: (a) examining the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing; (b) considering the method and frequency of each fraud of this case; and (c) the other party, etc., the nature of the crime is not very good; (b) the defendant has been punished for the same crime; (c) the victims wish to punish the defendant; and (d) there are no particular changes in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment; and (c) considering the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair. Therefore,

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.