A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts only borrowed money from the victim, and did not induce the victim as stated in the facts charged.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below, the defendant alleged the same as the reasons for appeal in this part of this part, and the court below rejected the above argument by explaining the argument of the defendant and the decision on it under the title "the judgment on the crime of deception and the crime of defraudation". In full view of the circumstances such as the reasoning of the court below duly admitted and investigated, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and the criminal intent of defraudation related thereto. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is disadvantageous to the Defendant and the prosecutor, in light of the content and method of the instant crime, the degree of damage, etc., and the fact that no agreement was reached with the victim.

However, in full view of all the sentencing circumstances indicated in the records, such as the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, criminal records, and circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3...