The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant clearly stated that he would be able to repay the defendant's bonds at the time of borrowing money from the victim, and that he had been actively engaged in film production activities at the time, and that he had the intent and ability to repay the funds of the Suwon billion won, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Various circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, including the defendant's partial statement in the judgment of mistake of facts, E's legal statement in the court below,O's partial statement in the court of original instance, monetary lending contract with investment condition, customer director, etc., in particular, the defendant clearly expresses that the purpose of the loan is to repay bonds, but it is apparent that the victim would not lend money to the defendant's personal loan without collateral if he knew that the purpose of the loan is to repay the bonds is to make the defendant's personal loan. It is apparent that the victim's statement that the defendant would lend money to the defendant without collateral. The victim's statement that the defendant would lend money to the defendant as a film production cost when he is able to receive film distribution right is much more persuasive. ② The monetary lending contract with the defendant as of March 10, 2010 prepared by the defendant with the victim with the loan of money is not only the defendant's main purpose of lending money to the defendant's personal loan of KRW 400 million through funds or other funds.