The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victim J knows not only that the Defendant was not making a real estate transaction with the money borrowed from the victims, but also that the Defendant is making a so-called so-called “to prevent a return.” As such, the part of the charges against the victim J in the facts charged did not constitute deception and mistake of the networkr.

Even if the victim J did not know the above facts, the victim J did not know it.

Even if the J lends money to receive interest at a high interest rate, so there is no relationship between deception and disposal.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s punishment (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the defendant borrowed money from the victimJ as a real estate purchase fund, and used most of borrowed money as a repayment of his/her own debt or an investment in other businesses, etc., and the victimJ believed that the defendant believed that he/she would invest the said money in real estate is true.

In addition, in light of the size of money borrowed from the victimJ or the circumstances at the time, if the victimJ knew that the defendant would use the money he/she borrowed for real estate purchase as the so-called “the so-called “the prevention of return” instead of using the money as the real estate purchase fund, it is reasonable to view that the defendant would not lend money to the defendant even when taking the risk of removing large amount of money in the near future.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. In comparison with the judgment of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the court below is reasonable.