In addition, the defendant borrowed money from E from time to time, and there was an intention and ability to make a legal representation.

The defendant committed each fraud against the victim F and J (2016 Highest 5820 case) with payment to F and J several times and adjusted the F in criminal conciliation proceedings to F in F, and 13.4 million won to J, and 12.6 million won to J, which is different from the facts.

The sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts as to the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the Defendant, even though not having been able to complete payment, by deceiving E as well as account transfer, by receiving the sum of KRW 165 million in check and cash as well as account transfer.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① At the investigative agency and the court below consistently stated that “E loaned KRW 165 million in total to the Defendant by means of account transfer, check, or cash payment, and, at the same time, lent money to the Defendant in cash, the Defendant paid in the Defendant’s car parked in the agricultural parking lot in Daejeon, after withdrawing the money from the NAF at the NAF branch.”

② According to the account transaction details and the tracking of the use of checks, E lent money to the Defendant in cash and check.

On the same day as the date the defendant stated, the withdrawal of cash from the agricultural branch of the NAFFF in Daejeon, and the issuance of a check at the said agricultural branch and the use of the check after payment by the defendant. E.