The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles that the Defendant, at the time of borrowing KRW 100 million from the injured party on March 2013, 2013, was financially capable of repaying the Defendant, the Defendant actually paid the interest three times, and the loan borrowed separately thereafter, there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation by the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court can recognize the criminal intent of the Defendant by fraud.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① Although the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the injured party for the purpose of interior golf course construction funds, the Defendant used KRW 60 million among them as personal debt repayment.

(2) The defendant is demanding to pay KRW 100 million to the victim until March 31, 2013.

On March 7, 2013, the Defendant and the victim prepared a fair certificate of lending and borrowing of money with the payment deadline fixed on March 31, 2013. The Defendant did not have the ability to repay the money borrowed from the investigative agency until March 31, 2013.

set forth by the person.

③ On March 3, 2013, the Defendant owned GJ large 801 square meters and above ground buildings, and the J Compensation Consultative Committee set the amount of compensation for the said land and above ground buildings at KRW 397,706,885.

However, around March 2013, multiple attachment, provisional attachment, and collateral security had already been established, and the sum total of the claim amount of provisional attachment and the claim amount of collateral security that had been established at the time exceeds 400 million won.

Meanwhile, on March 2013, the Defendant’s wife owned L apartment 102, 507, around the first week (hereinafter “Seoul”) but, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the amount assessed to KRW 54 million as the appraised value of the above apartment was KRW 25 million and at the time.