The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant in mistake of facts received 23 million won from the victim D such as the statement in the facts charged, but at the time, the defendant did not deceiving the above victim, and the criminal intent of defraudation cannot be recognized.

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

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court stated that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim D (hereinafter “victim” only referred to as “victim”) stated in the police and the lower court’s court that the Defendant talked as stated in the facts charged, and that such statement was specific and consistent; ② the Defendant asked the police that “the victim did not have any means to engage in the Defendant’s early November 2012, 2012, and talked about the Defendant’s view as an adult entertainment room.” The Defendant did not have any specific plan for the operation of the adult entertainment room at the time, and did not specifically discuss the Defendant’s operation of the online game site, and provided that the Defendant did not directly receive the Defendant’s funds from the Defendant for the purpose of using the Defendant’s funds, including the Defendant’s loan and the Defendant’s loan and the Defendant’s loan and the Defendant’s loan and the Defendant’s loan and the Defendant’s loan and the Defendant’s loan and the Defendant’s loan were not directly related to the Defendant’s business and the Defendant’s loan and the Defendant’s loan and the Defendant’s loan.