We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the first instance judgment, does not have any false statement on the purpose of the borrowed money to the victim.

The Defendant had the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money at the time.

B. The sentence of 1 deliberation on the sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant acquired money by deceptive means to the victim as stated in the judgment of the first instance court and the criminal intent of defraudation.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The Defendant, in the court of first instance, led to the confession of all the charges, including the intent of deception and deception.

In the first instance trial, when the defendant who was under the assistance of a private legal counsel led to the confession of the facts charged, there was a situation in which he had a reasonable doubt about the reason prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or the motive or process of the confession.

There is no circumstance to see.

② At the time of borrowing money from the injured party, the Defendant was holding a house Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu G, but was taking a debt of KRW 190 million, which was created by the right to collateral security, and a debt of KRW 48 million, which was not worth real estate. The Defendant was a real estate without value. The economic situation was difficult to prevent the so-called return by receiving cash service with a credit card without paying the monthly rent between the workplace and residence.

The Defendant, even though there is no clear repayment plan or self-sufficiency, has different uses of the borrowed money from the fact, and has borrowed money from the injured party by making a false statement as if he/she provided real estate worth security as security.

③ On June 2, 2014, the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party, and around June 2, 2014, the “F” that the Defendant operated.