The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Fact misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not borrow money from the victim.

(2) The Defendant owned Suwon-si G Apartment-gu 905 apartment house I (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) under the name of Chosi-si, and the Defendant owned 404m2 (hereinafter “the instant apartment of this case”) prior to Kasung-si, the land of this case (hereinafter “the instant land”). The apartment of this case and the instant land collectively owned the same, thereby borrowing money from the victim.

Even if there was an intention or ability to repay it.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. 1) The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court on the assertion that there was no misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

The court below rejected the assertion on the argument following the summary of the evidence.

Examining the lower judgment in comparison with the record, the lower court’s judgment that the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged person is justifiable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion that the Defendant had intent to repay or ability to repay, the fact that the Defendant had no intent to repay or ability to repay was sufficiently recognized at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The facts charged of the instant case does not simply mean that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim even without any specific property, but rather, that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim by making a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would immediately repay money to the victim by offering each of the instant real property until March 30, 2016.”

Therefore, the value of each real estate of this case as security is the difference.