However, since only the Defendant appealed the part of the judgment below as to the conviction and did not appeal all the Defendant and the prosecutor with respect to the dismissal of prosecution, among the judgment below, only the remaining guilty part of the judgment of the court below is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant recognized the crime from the investigative agency to reflect the mistake, the primary offender, and the partial recovery of the damage.

However, as the Defendant could fully repay the borrowed money with land expropriation compensation, the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the victim and deceiving him/her about KRW 76 million, and by using it to repay his/her actual debt through gambling, etc., and the nature of the crime was not somewhat weak. The defense counsel argued that most of the damages have not been recovered up to the trial, and that the Defendant paid most of the principal and interest of the money received from the victim by December 6, 2015. However, on March 2, 2016, the Defendant stated that the Defendant paid approximately KRW 8 million with interest, etc. to the victim, and that the principal was not repaid at all.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the background and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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