The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the amount of KRW 120 million in total at the time of borrowing from the victim the amount of KRW 120,000,000 (= KRW 100,000) on two occasions, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as to the intent or capacity of repayment

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that the defendant had no intention or ability to repay, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s reasoning stated in the part on the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” was duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, (i) the victim only became the Defendant through the introduction of S at the time of the date indicated in the instant facts charged, and did not have any special personal relationship with the Defendant, and (ii) the Defendant did not agree with the intent to provide benefits, such as appointing the victim as an executive officer of the said company when he was planned to acquire H and N, a listed company as indicated in the instant facts charged, and the Defendant did not agree with the intent to assign the victim as an executive officer of the said company. In so doing, it appears that the victim did not lend a large amount of KRW 120 million in total to the Defendant; (ii) in the e-mail sent by the Defendant to the victim on December 2, 2015, stating that “B and currently underway M&A may take time, but is not paid for a long time.”