The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant received KRW 71 million under the pretext of distribution, etc. related to the business of a restaurant, but did not borrow it from the victim, but the court below rejected the defendant's assertion and recognized the defendant's fraud based on only the statement of the victim D without credibility. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the court below are consistent with the evidence duly adopted and examined. ① With respect to the circumstance that the victim transferred a total of KRW 71 million to the defendant from August 6, 2008 to December 18, 2008, the victim argued that the victim was transferred a total of KRW 71 million to the defendant, from August 6, 2008, from the police to December 18, 2008, the defendant was required to pay money with rain funds, or, thereby, lent money to the victim as a result of the need for attorney appointment fees from time to time. ② The defendant was 10 million in cash transfer to the victim at the end of the court below and the court below. However, the victim argued that the victim was given a loan of KRW 70,000 to the victim under the name of 70,000,0000,000 to 10,000,000 won in cash transfer and 20,000.