The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant provided the real estate equivalent to 14 times the borrowed amount as security by borrowing money from the victim, but the victim did not set the security right within the agreed period, so there was no intention of deception and deception.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of fraud on the premise that the defendant had the intention of deception and deception is erroneous.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court.

As to this, the court below accepted the defendant's assertion in light of the fact that since the victim lent money to the defendant that he would repay the money to the defendant, it seems that the establishment of a security right is not discussed at the beginning, and that the victim did not establish a security right because the defendant did not deliver a certificate of real estate registration to the victim. In the process of borrowing money, the court below acknowledged the crime of fraud on the ground that the defendant's intent of deception and fraud is recognized in light of the statements or documents presented by

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts, and thus, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.