The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) misunderstanding of facts, the defendant's fraud against victim E bears the food value and drinking value stated in this part of the facts charged by the victim E, and thus, he was provided with it, and even if he did not have the intent to commit fraud, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

(2) Although the Defendant, even though not in a normal way, intended to receive a written appraisal from the victim O via Broer U (which was not accepted due to the locked of the U), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (1) The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts against the victim E has argued that the defendant had no intention to commit the crime of deceitation as to this part of the facts charged, and the court below rejected it by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the defendant had the victim E pay for alcohol and food equivalent to KRW 13,898,50 for about one month; (b) the defendant had the victim E pay for alcohol and food for about one month; and (c) had the victim E drink the loan as soon as the loan was made.

Examining these reasoning of the judgment by the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, it is just and acceptable, which is, the victim E first became aware of the Defendant and W on January 20, 2012, and it does not seem to have a friendly relationship between the Defendant and W on the part of the Defendant. The Defendant and W are the land indicated in this part of the facts charged.