The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was not guilty of deceiving the victim as stated in each of the facts charged of this case, and there was no intention of deceiving the victim.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake: (i) the victim stated to the effect that he/she consistently lent money to the Defendant as business expenses indicated in the facts charged from the investigative agency to the lower court; (ii) the content of each agreement made between the Defendant and the victim on January 19, 201 and July 3, 2012 conforms to the victim’s statement; (ii) the Defendant borrowed each amount indicated in the facts charged from the damaged party from December 12, 2010 to September 2012, 2012; (iii) the Defendant did not have any property owned by the Defendant in his/her own name from around December 201 to around September 2012; and (iv) the Defendant did not have any dispute over the amount of personal debt to the victim during the process of promoting D reconstruction with its partners from around 206 to around 208; and (v) the Defendant did not have secured the funds for D reconstruction project at least 130.

Along with the fact that the defendant had discussed that the above borrowed money was disbursed as the expense of the D reconstruction project.

In fact, there is no objective data to determine the person, 4. The cruital project is actually carried out on June 30, 201 when the defendant borrowed money from the injured person as a cruital project expense.