The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay money from the victim at the time of borrowing money, but was merely unable to repay money ex post facto because the business was not well-grounded, and therefore there is no intention to acquire money.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as well as each of the circumstances inferred therefrom, the fact that the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 48 million from the victim without any intent and capacity to repay from the beginning can be recognized.

1) On March 13, 2013, the victim stated at the investigative agency that “If the defendant is unable to pay the money after the second month of March 13, 2013, he would bring three vehicles under the name of the defendant's wife, he would be given a motor vehicle transfer certificate, motor vehicle registration certificate, loan certificate, etc. to trust the horse and lent KRW 30 million. If the defendant has lent money to operate the frequency collection, he would be immediately repaid with the loan of alcoholic beverages and he would be immediately repaid with the loan of KRW 28 million. However, the defendant did not pay the money to the expiration of the duration of the promise, and it was confirmed that he sold two vehicles to another person and raised a complaint.” Considering that the defendant also borrowed a sum of KRW 48 million from the victim to the victim, the defendant's subjective statement made by the investigative agency cannot be seen as having been made in view of the circumstances such as the victim's statement and the circumstances leading up to the crime of fraud.