However, the court below found guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records, the lower court stated that the Defendant had an intention to obtain the deception, not yet mentioning the circumstances.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant.

① At the time of borrowing money from a damaged person, the Defendant had a value of KRW 100 million, and had approximately KRW 140,000,000,000 of the security deposit of the vehicle operated by the Defendant.

However, even if the defendant's statement is based on the defendant's statement, the defendant met only a debt of 400 million won which has been notarized by another person at the time of borrowing money from the victim (Evidence 559 of the evidence record), and considering the above active property, the defendant seems to have been in excess of his/her obligation.

② On January 28, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the injured party as the purchase price for BMW 640 d vehicles, but actually used the vehicle (Evidence No. 553 pages), and all of them seem to have used the vehicle as repayment, living expenses, etc. for other investors.

After all, even though the defendant borrowed money from the damaged person under the pretext of purchasing a vehicle or acquiring a repair plant, it does not seem that he/she used money for the purpose that the victim speaks.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.