The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As seen below, as follows, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intent to commit the crime of deception.

① Of the instant loan borrowed from the injured party, the Defendant repaid the principal and interest within one month as agreed upon, on January 30, 2013, KRW 100 million borrowed from the injured party.

(2) Claims and obligations that the defendant had against another person at the time of borrowing money from the damaged person are different as the court below admitted.

The sum of the Defendant’s obligations was not equivalent to KRW 50 million recognized by the lower court, but to KRW 150 million. The Defendant had claims worth KRW 250 million, which was not claimed by the lower court.

Therefore, the Defendant had sufficient financial capabilities.

③ The victim was well aware of the profit structure and type of business through the Defendant’s substitute loan. The victim was only interested in paying the principal’s money while running the above business.

In other words, only the money received from the injured party is not a premise between the injured party and the injured party, and the defendant did not go against the injured party's intent on the ground that the above money is repaid to other creditors.

④ Although the Defendant’s business method was sufficiently sustainable, given that the lending standard of a bank becomes strict since June 2013, and it is difficult to predict the termination of a bank’s business entrustment agreement with around November 2013, 2013, the instant lending cannot be repaid.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the defense counsel's assertion that there was no criminal intent of deception and deception, as alleged in the Defendant's mistake of facts, as to the Defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court is sufficiently able to pay the amount even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged person in light of the following circumstances.