The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, although the Defendant did not borrow money of KRW 13 million from the victim C, received part of the promissory note amount at par value of KRW 50 million, the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by mistake of facts.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant called the victim C by telephone on April 26, 2010 to the effect that “the steel franchising 13 million won is urgently needed, and the victim borrowed franchising 13 million won to the account of the FF corporation operated by the Defendant after obtaining a loan certificate (Evidence No. 4 pages) from the Defendant,” and the victim stated that C loaned 13 million won to the account of the Defendant under the investigative agency to the court of the lower court. The Defendant also stated that the investigative agency loaned 13 million won to the Defendant, and that the Defendant was also aware of the circumstances such as “the victim was franchising 13 million won and franchising franchising franchising franchising franchising franchising franchising franchising franchising franchising fran.”

Meanwhile, according to the records, on March 18, 2010, the Defendant received promissory notes from the victim, with the face value of KRW 50 million,00,000,000 from the D representative director E, and supplied the victim with the iron bars worth KRW 40,656,00 from April 2, 2010, and the said promissory notes were refused payment due to the alteration on or around the 20th of the same month.