The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the charges of fraud against the Defendant, even though the Defendant merely transferred the victim’s horses to E and transferred all the money received from the victim to E, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The key issue of the instant case is that the victim, as stated in the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court below, stated that “E necessary for the reduction of the instant officetel auction reserve, deposit money, service expenses, etc.” was due to the Defendant, not E, and the Defendant also recognized the fact that the victim made such a statement to the victim.

With regard to this, E denies that such a statement was not made to the defendant or the victim, and the defendant asserts that he transferred it to the victim by making such a statement from E, and therefore, the issue in this case is whether the above statement was made or not.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are recognized.

(A) The Defendant needs to have the instant officetel auction as stated in the instant facts charged.

A complaint was filed on the ground that he/she acquired 97 million won including 40 million won out of the amount of damage of this case by making a false statement to himself/herself as necessary for the deposit money, service expenses, etc. for the above auction, but the statement of E is as follows.