The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) 2017 High Order 1364 (A) 15 million won to the victim J was not deceiving the victim, and the Defendant did not have the intent to defraud the victim, and paid the money.

(B) The victim of the hiven vehicle from the victim J was provided with the hiver vehicle by the defendant, and requested the disposal of the hiver vehicle by the defendant, and the proceeds of the sale did not remain after deducting the unpaid amount of the administrative fine from the hiver vehicle.

(C) The Defendant transferred the ownership of the benz vehicle in the name of the victim and used the full amount of the loan granted on the security of the vehicle in the process of purchasing the vehicle, and did not deceiving the victim.

(D) The Defendant did not intimidation the victim or force the victim to meet with respect to a special intimidation, intimidation, or coercion of interview with the victim J.

(E) The Defendant did not damage the victim’s mobile phone from the victim S.

(f) The defrauded against the victim V invested in the Defendant’s gas station business, and the Defendant was trying to run the gas station business, but only the Defendant was a small and conclusive business.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of defraudation.

(2) On the ground that the Defendant had the intent or ability to pay the cost of installing a computer, 2017 high group 2513, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim Y and did not have the intention to defraud it.

(3) If the Defendant, as planned, took over and operated the gas station normally as planned, then the Defendant was able to repay the victim AB’s loans, but only he did not perform his own business.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of defraudation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the 2018 highest 922 crime: imprisonment with prison labor for three months and two years and three months and three months, respectively) is unreasonable.

2. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles or mistake of facts is made.