The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserts the mistake of facts as follows, and this case is merely the result of the Defendant’s endeavor to secure the right to collect recyclables from the victim E and thus it cannot be recognized as a criminal intent to defraud the Defendant. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① As to the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the Defendant requested the R of the diart commercial building to collect recyclables by requesting the R thereof, and the Defendant consented thereto.

② As to the facts constituting a crime under paragraph (2), the victim shall be deemed to have been repaid inasmuch as the victim believed the Defendant’s ability to repay and agreed to convert the amount into the deposit, rather than lending KRW 20 million, to maintain the business of collecting recycled products. The above KRW 20 million, when concluding a contract for collecting recyclable products on September 25, 201, shall be deemed to have been repaid.

③ As to the facts constituting a crime, the Defendant was also seeking to increase the number of commercial buildings that can be collected by securing customers and collecting recyclables gradually in the state of securing the right to collect recyclables from “APM commercial buildings” and “IPM commercial buildings”.

B. Even if the conviction of unjust sentencing is recognized, the lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant only consented to the collection of the goods from “APM commercial buildings” and “APM commercial buildings” and there is no authority in relation to the collection of recycled goods from the rest of the commercial buildings or the Gyeonggi University. In relation to the DNA commercial buildings, the Defendant was only one person responsible for the collection of recyclable goods at the time, but there is only one person responsible for the collection of recyclable goods at the time.