The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) As to the facts charged 1, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.

The Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party for various reasons, such as new store operating expenses, stock investment expenses, and living expenses, and actually used the borrowed money for the above purpose.

In addition, there is no false statement about the method of raising the repayment fund.

The defendant had self-sufficiency at the time of the case.

Even if there was a deception by the Defendant

Even if there is no substantial relation between deception and disposal of property, there is no relation with the person.

2) Part of the facts charged in the part of the indictment 2 refers to the part of the judgment below 1-6, 11-15, 32-49, 85-91, 126-151, which is attached Table 2 of the List of Offenses.

The defendant does not dispute the remainder of the facts charged in the second part of the charges.

As to the defendant, the defendant did not deceiving the victim.

The defendant established and operated a trade company in China, and 400 million won of the advance payment tax incurred in the course of the business was refunded from the Chinese government, and borrowed money from the victims in order to raise expenses to bring them into Korea.

In addition, the defendant borrowed money from the damaged party as well as the expenses for the refund of the Chinese advance payment tax, such as expenses for new store operation, stock investment, living expenses, etc., and the defendant committed deception in relation to the loan use.

It is difficult to view it.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the facts charged 1, the lower court fully recognizes the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim without intent to repay the borrowed money as stated in the lower judgment, thereby deceiving the victim.