The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant borrowed money from the damaged person as stated in the facts charged of this case. However, the defendant actually used the money as a business fund, and there was no scope of fraud because he thought that he would repay the money to the injured person with such profit.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also argued similar to the grounds for appeal, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, based on the evidence so decided.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, (i) the Defendant appears to have consumed the borrowed money from the injured party as living expenses, etc.; (ii) the Defendant appears to have used the borrowed money as revenue from the imported money, such as ancient, his own, etc. (Evidence No. 20-23 of the evidence record; and (iii) the Defendant submitted a receipt for purchase of goods and an auction settlement statement, etc. using the money as intended; (iv) it was related to the transactions conducted from March 2013 to December 2014; and (v) the Defendant was deemed to have paid the borrowed money to KRW 7,605 (Evidence No. 20 of the evidence record). In light of the economic situation at the time of the Defendant, it seems practically impossible for the Defendant to repay part of the borrowed money to the Defendant, which was promised by the Defendant.

However, in full view of the circumstances following the establishment of a crime of fraud, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts.

subsection (b) of this section.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.