The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud of January 14, 2014, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 10 million from the damaged person; (b) subsequently, it was difficult for the Defendant to take advantage of the profits from farming activities on the wind that was involved in the traffic accident; and (c) paid KRW 5 million around May 2014; and (d) there was the intent of the Defendant to obtain fraud.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, took the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the Defendant’s investigative agency, stating that the Defendant was in need of money in purchasing the de facto marry to the victim. Of that, the amount of KRW 4 million was used for other purposes, such as reimbursement of existing debts and living expenses.

The Defendant stated that the Defendant was unable to fully repay KRW 20 million borrowed from the injured party as stated in the facts constituting the crime No. 1 of the judgment, as stated in the judgment, (1) The Defendant stated that “No profit has been made for four years,” and “the Defendant sold the purchased de facto marbry so purchased to another person, and paid KRW 5 million to the injured party, but the remaining amount was not known to the injured party.” In light of these statements, it seems unclear whether the Defendant intended to repay the borrowed amount to the injured party by any means at the time; (4) The Defendant was subject to diagnosis of KRW 60,00 as a result of a traffic accident around February 25, 2014; however, the Defendant was unable to fully obtain the principal from the injured party despite the lapse of four years thereafter, even if the Defendant failed to fully obtain the loan to the injured party.