Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination reveals that the Defendant: (a) KRW 3 million from C on January 13, 2014; (b) KRW 1,29,000,000 from C; and (c) the same year.

2. 4. Total sum of KRW 10 million is borrowed and delivered to C in order to secure the obligation for the borrowed money, but C does not agree to succeed to the lease contract for each of the of the of the of the instant vehicles from the Defendant and deliver each of the instant vehicles to C. Nevertheless, on April 3, 2014, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that C filed a complaint with the investigative agency against C by deceiving the Defendant as he/she did not succeed to the lease contract for each of the instant vehicles.

The above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.