The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant borrowed money from the injured party in most repeatedly over a considerable period of time and did not repay part of the money, and the victim could have sufficiently predicted the risk of default due to his well-known knowledge of the Defendant’s revenue or ability to repay, and the amount that the injured party means that he borrowed money from G and H from the Defendant (as long as the Defendant took the form of borrowing money from G and H by means of the broker of the Defendant, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant would have attempted to obtain money from the injured party, not H, as long as he borrowed money from G and H, in light of the fact that the Defendant deceivings the injured party or attempted to obtain money from the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) Even if a part of the facts constituting an offense is found guilty, the Defendant is merely merely taking the form of repaying the borrowed money to the victim and borrowing a part of the borrowed money again, and there is a substantial number of funds.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the gain actually acquired by the Defendant is worth KRW 90 million, which is the difference between the loan and the repayment amount. In addition, there is a part that the victim of the crime of fraud should be deemed to be F but G H as well as G H. Therefore, the amount of the gain acquired by the Defendant cannot exceed KRW 50 million as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is unfair.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation.