The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant was not the victim as the victim with D and the husband and wife, and the victim, while lending money to D, demanded the Defendant to prepare a loan certificate and guaranteed the return of the above loan certificate, and did not demand the Defendant to lend money to the victim.

There is no deception by the Defendant by deeming the victim as a security to receive large amounts of milk from G, not the repayment of the outstanding amount to G, the actual use of the borrowed amount.

2) The Defendant had the intent to repay and had the ability to repay at the time of borrowing the instant loan.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts and circumstances may be acknowledged:

According to this, the defendant borrowed 50 million won from the injured party as a borrower of monetary consumption lending and lending, and there was no intention to repay and ability to repay to the defendant at the time of the next borrowing.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the court below's finding of facts is just, and the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

1) From around around 1987 to around 2013, the Defendant operated a private father agency with G in the name of the Defendant, and discontinued its business. From the past 2010, the Defendant established and operated an agency under the name of D (Evidence Records 8, 47, 111, 116, 120 pages) and D (Evidence Records 8, 47, 116, 120 pages). The Defendant and D did not actively understand the surrounding people, who came to know of the operation of G father agency, with the Defendant’s husband and wife.

The defendant, who became aware of the period between 7 and 8, has not been able to friendly to the victim from 4 to 5 years, for a long time.