The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have the ability and intent to repay the loan when the victim borrowed money as joint and several sureties, and the defendant did not have the criminal intent and deception.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

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

2. Determination:

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by stating in detail the Defendant’s assertion under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment, on the grounds that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine are identical to the grounds for appeal of this case.

Examining the Defendant’s arguments closely by comparing them with records, the lower court’s fact-finding and judgment are justifiable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined a punishment by taking into account the following: (a) the nature of the instant crime is not good; and (b) the Defendant is not paying the loan up to the present time; (c) the Defendant is the first offender; (d) the Defendant is the first offender; and (e) the Defendant has not actually executed the property of the victim or paid the loan to

Although the defendant is deemed to have partially repaid a loan to a financial institution according to the debt settlement by the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission, it cannot be deemed that the damage recovery was made in light of the amount of damage in this case, and there are no new circumstances to change the sentence of the court below in other trials, and the court below and the court below.