The argument is asserted.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the original instance, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the original judgment, was obtained by deceiving the victim without the intent to repay the debt to the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the original judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

0 At the time, the defendant was demanded to return KRW 10,000,000, which was paid by D as a business promotion expense.

In addition, although the defendant stated as the guarantor on the loan certificate prepared and issued by the victim, he would directly repay the loan money to the victim by the end of June 2010.

was stated additionally.

On the other hand, E recorded as the borrower is an employee or driver who has been placed in the defendant's work, and there is no reason to borrow money directly from the injured party, such as first met on the date of borrowing with the victim.

In addition, because there is no bank account under the name of the defendant at the time, E makes a statement that he received a remittance using his own account, and the amount of KRW 10 million received in the name of E was immediately transferred to the I’s account in the name of his father.

In light of these circumstances, the victim trusted that the defendant would have the intent and ability to repay due to the lending and borrowing of money, not the remitter E, under the name of the remittance account and lent money to the defendant.

It is reasonable to view it.

0 Defendant 0 did not present a certificate of cash custody, arguing that E has lent KRW 10 million from the injured party to repay the borrowed debt to it.

0. It is clear that the defendant borrowed 10 million won from the injured party as above.