A. Fact-finding 1) It is true that the defrauded received the same money as stated in the facts charged from the victims. However, it is sufficient for the Defendant to pay the money from the victims at the time of the Defendant’s receipt of the money, and there was only a person who borrowed the money from the Defendant, such as the O, to escape, and as a result, he did not pay the money to the victims. Therefore, it does not constitute deception, and there was no intention to commit fraud. 2) Since the Defendant drafted a letter of loan with the comprehensive delegation of the complainant and the debtor, it does

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he/she received money by deceiving the victims, and the intention of fraud is also recognized.

(1) Although the Defendant received money from the victims by stating that he would lend money to the market merchants and return high-interest profits, the Defendant actually used most of the above money as an individual in relation to the clothing sales store operated by the Defendant.

Defendant

In addition, it has recognized this fact at the time of being investigated by the prosecution.

(No. 541-542 pages) (2) The Defendant used most of the money received from the victims as an individual, but presented a false loan certificate in the process of receiving money from the victims, as seen in the following (2), thereby creating appearance that the Defendant actually lent money to the market merchants and received interest. (3) The Defendant’s claim for return of the deposit for lease deposit at home and in store at the time of the instant case;