The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the loan of this case by the joint defendant B alone borrowed money from the damaged person as stated in the judgment below, and the defendant did not borrow money from the damaged person as stated in the judgment below, and even if the defendant borrowed money from the damaged person, the victim borrowed money from the damaged person even though he knew the defendant's difficult economic situation at the time, so the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant did not have any intention of deception or deception. The judgment of the court below

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the lower court to comprehensively consider the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion, such as misunderstanding of facts, that is, ① the victim from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, to the end of October 20, 209, that the Defendant was unable to pay the IM settlement funds.

15 million won was remitted to the account in the name of the defendant.

On November 2011, 201, the Defendant borrowed money directly to the victim with B, and the Defendant would establish a provisional registration on the I EM building under his/her name.

On November 25, 201, it was believed that there are a lot of buildings with money, and that there is a shortage of mast operating expenses for the hall, and transferred KRW 90 million to an account under the name of the defendant around November 25, 201.

The victims consistently stated that B lent money to the Defendant other than B, and that B only acted as a broker, ② in the investigation agency and court of the court below that the Defendant B did not borrow the instant money from the victims, ③ all of the instant borrowed money was transferred to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, and KRW 15 million was used as the Mart operating fund of Defendant name, and KRW 90 million was used.