The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The complainant was operated by the defendant, misunderstanding of facts (the fraud)

D Trusting the future selling value of the hotel and lending the instant money to the Defendant.

Although the Defendant intended to repay the amount of money borrowed from D’s proceeds from the hotel sale, the Defendant was unable to pay the amount of money with the wind to pay D’s sales due to the mers situation around May 2015.

Therefore, it is not recognized that the defendant is guilty of deception and fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, there was a circumstance where the sales of D hotel was reduced rapidly due to a mers situation that occurred around May 2015.

Even if there was a criminal intent to commit fraud against the defendant at the time of each borrowing of this case

It is reasonable to view it.

① The Defendant appears to have borrowed money from the injured party while repaying the credit expenses for remodeling construction works.

However, according to the Defendant’s statement, the credit expenses incurred at around February 2015 remain at a level of KRW 130 million, but the actual payment of the expenses for remodeling work out of the amount received from the injured party is limited to KRW 2,80,000 ( KRW Q 1.8 million, KRW 500,000 subsidies, and KRW 500,000 per previous daily day). The remainder was used for monthly payment of hotel monthly income, hotel operating expenses, personal debt repayment, and personal living expenses (Evidence No. 282-284 of the evidence record). ② If the Defendant sells D hotel at a good price, the Defendant stated that the building owner lent money to the Defendant as a fee for KRW 20,00,000, and that the Defendant’s statement is consistent with this Opinion.

D The I called the actual owner of the hotel is to give a certain amount to the defendant when he sells the hotel as well as the business.

There is a talking fact

The statement was made (101 pages of evidence).