The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it was true that the defendant borrowed five million won from the victim, there was no fact that the sampling cost of the cosmetics trade business that F is initiated at the time of borrowing, and there was no fact that F and telephone conversations were made at the same place with the victim.

Since the defendant tried to receive money from F and to repay to the victim, he did not have the intention to commit the crime of fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant argued that the judgment of the court below is identical to this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument by clearly explaining the decision in detail. If the judgment of the court below is compared with evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per

[However, in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the "receives by the victim" in Section 17 of the third part of the decision of the court below shall be corrected ex officio to "the victim's son's son's