A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, even though he did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and did not intend to commit fraud, because the defendant was able to repay the borrowed money of this case and other debts when he received the progress payment for the E-Maintenance Project at the time of borrowing this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of all the conditions of sentencing on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As the grounds for appeal concerning a mistake of facts, the defendant alleged that there was no deception of the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and there was no criminal intent to acquire by deceit at the time of the instant case. Therefore, the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by stating in detail the arguments of the defendant and his defense counsel under the title "decision on the argument of the defendant and the defense counsel" in the judgment of the court below, which is the same as the grounds for appeal of this case. In comparison with the records, the court below's decision is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles on the fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts is not justified.

B. It is recognized that there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant did not have the record of punishment as a same kind of crime, and that the defrauded of the defendant is relatively weak.

However, it seems that the defendant did not take any measures to recover damage until the court of the trial, and the victim did not receive the loan from the defendant on the agreed date and did not pay the school expenses of the children who are college students.