The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. Around April 2014, the Defendant had been operating an entertainment planning company, borrowed KRW 15 million in order to use the part of the said money as the cost, etc. for a cover of the cost, etc. for a cover of the cost, etc. of a cover of 15 million in order to use it as the cost for a cover of a cover of a cover of a cover of expenses for the management of the entertainment planning company.

On May 2014, the defendant received the consent of the company by demanding late payment due because he had no money to purchase the vehicle for the company.

On September 2014, the Defendant converted the existing loan amount of KRW 15 million into the investment amount, received additional investment of KRW 5 million from the victim, used the said KRW 20 million as the cost of creation of the team to which the victim belongs, and entered into an exclusive contract with the victim, and used the said KRW 5 million as the cost of preparation for the team profit, and used the said KRW 5 million as the cost of preparation for the team profit.

However, in 2014, since it is difficult for the victim to operate the entertainment planning company due to the escape of the collective household balance network caused by the victim's leading around the end of the end of the year, the victim is only unable to perform the cost of waste disposal.

Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the defendant had the criminal intent to obtain fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court recognized the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) If the victim consistently lends KRW 15 million to an investigative agency to the lower court; (ii) if the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million around April 14, 2014, he/she would have lent the said money to the Defendant in the formation of the team to which the victim belongs; and (iii) if he/she additionally pays KRW 5 million around September 17, 2014, he/she has already lent KRW 15 million to the previous company.