The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles that the defendant had a debt of KRW 900 million at the time of receiving money from the victims, and that it was unclear whether to permit an urban development project in which the defendant was under way, and that the defendant used most of the above money for personal purposes.

The defendant had the intention and ability to pay the money from the victims at the time of receiving the money, so there was no intention to acquire it by deception.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles 1) The fact that the Defendant was in excess of his/her obligation at the time of receiving money from the victims, as well as the Defendant’s permission for an urban development project under the process of the Defendant’s progress, was misinfluenced, and thus, the progress of the project was difficult, and the Defendant was unable to repay the money received from the victims at the time of prosecution or the intermediate stage of trial, and the Defendant paid most of the money received from the victims as personal card payment, corporate bonds interest, entertainment expenses, etc. The Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that most of the money was paid by the victims. According to the following: (a) the Defendant’s deception that could be known in full view of the above facts; (b) the Defendant’s reputation, credit and ability before and after the crime

The decision was determined.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s finding and determination of the above facts is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, Defendant .