The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles provide as security the lease deposit of the above borrowed money and the maximum interest permitted under the Interest Limitation Act at the time when the Defendant borrowed 300,000,000 won from the victim, the Defendant has no intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of fraud among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant believed that the security offered by the Defendant was worth at least KRW 600,000,000,000, which was the first agreement to return to the victim; (b) the Defendant’s claim for return of KRW 640,000,000 from the security provided by the Defendant was that the Defendant could not independently offer the full amount of the deposit as security; (c) the “M” deposit was not provided as security; and (d) the amount of KRW 200,00,000,000 was not actually nonexistent even if it was not notified to the Defendant; and (c) the victim could not be deemed to have provided sufficient security unless it was notified to the Defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances revealed by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant stated that the Defendant would return KRW 300,000 to the victim KRW 600,000 after two months from its face by investing the amount of KRW 300,000 in Driet.