The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, as stated in the facts charged in this case, the Defendant issued a cashier's check equivalent to KRW 120 million to the victim as stated in the above facts charged. However, at the time, the Defendant issued a cashier's check issued by the victim to H to the warehouse located in Gyeonggi-gu, which was actually kept in custody of the old right, USD, and gold ing, and the Defendant issued the cashier's check issued by the victim to H in order to mislead the above old right, USD, and gold ing. However, the Defendant failed to pay borrowed money to the victim because the above H did not perform its promise with the Defendant, and the Defendant could not be deemed to have deceiving the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The first instance court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court stated that the Defendant was unable to receive KRW 2.7 billion from 2006 to H under the pretext of purchase of old currency in the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant had the right money again in 2009, and delivered the money again to H within one week under the pretext of purchase of old currency because he had the right money again in 2009. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant had delivered all of the checks received from the victim to H, but the Defendant actually used some number of checks, as argued by the Defendant, and even at the Defendant’s assertion, H did not show the sample of old currency and did not show the real text of old currency.