The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant did not deceiving the victim, and the victim merely provided funds to the defendant or provided joint and several sureties for the company's loans as the representative director of the company.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case in the lower court’s determination of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected this assertion by clarifying the reasons in detail not more than 6th of the lower judgment.

The reasoning of the judgment by the court below was clearly erroneous in the examination of evidence.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, considering the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) The victim introduced himself/herself as a U.K. citizen with the consistency from the investigative agency to the court, which became final and conclusive to deliver PED products from Russia to the U.K., and made a statement to the effect that he/she lent money to the U.K. as a security for the borrowed money, or as a joint and several surety for the company loans. (2) However, the defendant made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that "the defendant did not introduce himself/herself as a citizen of the U.K., nor did he/she talk that he/she had a house in the U.K.," but the defendant was present at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Branch of the Korea Labor Agency on September 9, 2013 in relation to the violation of the Labor Standards Act.