The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant did not promise to repay the funds borrowed in the judgment of the court below within three months at the time of borrowing the funds, and the E-cafeteria operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

(2) The Defendant borrowed the above money, rather than being invested, and had the intent to repay and have the ability to repay, so there was no intention to commit deception and fraud. (2) In regard to the investment money fraud as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant borrowed the money and had the ability to repay with the intent to repay at that time.

On the other hand, 2-A of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

At the time of receiving the money stated in the subsection, there is no promise to jointly carry the instant restaurant, and the facts constituting the crime 2-B of the judgment below.

subsection (c),

At the time of receiving the money stated in the subsection, the defendant made efforts to consult with the commercial manager to change the restaurant of this case into a joint name.

Therefore, there was no intention to commit deception and fraud against the defendant.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated the crime of fraud as to the borrowed money as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, the Defendant, who did not have the intent to repay or ability to repay within three months, by deceiving the victim as if he did not have the ability to repay within three months, and by deceiving the victim of KRW 50 million through two times as the borrowed money.

Since it is sufficiently recognized, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The victim stated that “after the lapse of three months” is “after the maturity of the above borrowed money,” and the Defendant stated in the prosecutor’s office that “I never borrowed money for a long period of time,” and stated that “I would like to say that I would not have borrowed money for a long period of time,” a certain portion of the statement of the victim.