The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It lent KRW 30,100,000 to E to the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) so that he/she may repay the container rent sealed to a misunderstanding space container corporation.

The victim did not pay the container rent by priority on the settlement of card payment.

There was no intention of deception and deception.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, it seems that the Defendant committed a deceptive act stating the facts charged, and that the Defendant had the intention to acquire it.

In the investigative agency and the court of the court below, the victim stated that "The time when the defendant asked the defendant to conclude a guarantee contract" was "Seman on April 2012." However, the defendant was detained in Seoul Central District Court 201Gohap1465, which was confirmed to have been released on June 26, 2012 due to the Seoul Central District Court's ruling on bail. The victim consistently stated that "after the defendant was released on bail" at the investigative agency and the court of the court below, and that the guarantee contract was concluded around July 22, 2012, it is understood that there was an error in memory or memory. (consort container rent is related) and there was no choice but to make a request to conclude a guarantee contract. However, since there were many people who make an investment at the construction site and all other people became well and the executive directors did not make a release on bail, the victim made it difficult for the defendant to do so."