A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant borrowed KRW 27,48,00 from the victim C, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation in view of the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 26,00,000 from the victim C, among which the Defendant paid KRW 26,00,000 among them. 2) The Defendant borrowed KRW 70,00,000 from the victim in light of the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 30,000 from the victim and repaid KRW 30,00,000 among them, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation; b) the preparation of a qualification-based private document, the preparation of qualification-based private document, and the preparation of qualification-based document by obtaining the right to lease from D and the right to lease KRW 302,302,00 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) between P and real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

C) As seen earlier than the fraud against the victim P, as the Defendant had the right to lease the instant real estate, there was no intention to commit fraud, and there was no damage to the victim. 3) Fraud (No. 2014Da1972) of the 5th judgment of the lower court (No. 2014Da1972) of the 5th judgment of the lower court (No. 2014DaDa1972), the Defendant purchased the instant real estate as the actual purchaser of the instant real estate, and acquired the entire

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts recognized by the original judgment and the court below’s duly adopted and investigated evidence as to the crime of fraud No. 1 of the judgment below (No. 2014Da1126) and each of the circumstances inferred from the evidence duly adopted and examined, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim C without the intent and ability to repay, thereby deceiving the victim C in sum 2,748,00 won may be recognized.

1. The victim has consistently been the defendant in the investigative agency and the court of original instance.