The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant borrowed money from the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged is erroneous [the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)].

However, the Defendant responded to the request of the victim to the effect that the victim will lend his surplus funds first, and the Defendant did not exaggeration the ability to repay, and paid the borrowed funds in cash.

Therefore, the defendant did not commit deception against the victim, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part.

In regard to this, the lower court: (a) the victim’s statement is reliable; (b) the victim did not request the Defendant to make an investment first; (c) it appears that the Defendant promised to pay interest at a high rate in excess of his/her ability to repay to the victim; and (b) the Defendant used the victim by forging the “certificate of Guarantee,” the “certificate,” the “certificate,” and the “Receipt,” etc. in the process of lending money from the victim; and (c) the victim suspected of the authenticity of the above documents forged the confirmation document under the name of a certified judicial scrivener; and (d) there was no certain revenue or property for the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of actively deceiving the victim without the ability to pay; and (c) the Defendant claimed that the Defendant paid the principal borrowed from the victim in cash after the investigative agency to the court, but did not present any specific details of repayment or supporting material therefor.