The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant used 50 million won, which was borrowed from the injured party under the pretext of the purchase price, etc. of the lusculous lusculty self (hereinafter “the instant lusculty self”).

The Defendant offered the victim as security three points of the value of the collateral (including the following three points of the non-commercial case) to the victim, with a sufficient value of the collateral. The Defendant provided three points of the collateral value (or three points of the non-commercial case in this case) to the victim, and had the intent of reimbursement and the ability of reimbursement at the time of use.

2) The Defendant did not have the intention to acquire money by means of the cashing of the instant intention, on the ground that: (a) it was difficult to repay the borrowed money due to the characteristics of the curios because of the fact that the cashing was not well achieved

3) Nevertheless, the court below which found the defendant guilty erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the appraisal report and reply based on the appraisal results prepared by the Korea High Art Association, an association of appraiser, the following facts and circumstances may be acknowledged:

According to this, the defendant offered 3 points in the instant case as if he had no value as a household goods as security to the victim as if he had been a serious amount of 50 million won as the household goods purchased by the defendant, and the household goods of this case were also purchased at the expense of purchase.

In addition, there is no intention to repay and no ability to repay to the defendant.

I would like to say.

The defendant can fully recognize the fact that he/she acquired by borrowing KRW 50 million from the damaged person in the name of the purchase price of this case, and he/she is also aware of the criminal intent of defraudation of the defendant.

Therefore, the lower court’s finding of facts is justifiable.