The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant was not only used the money obtained by deceit as stated in the judgment as the name of the victim at the time of each lending of this case, but also had the intention or ability to repay, so there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the defendant had the criminal intent to acquire the money of this case at the time of each crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

1) On February 21, 2013, the Defendant and C borrowed KRW 3 million in order to purchase machinery necessary to operate a factory from the victim as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime in the lower judgment, as stated in the lower judgment, around February 21, 2013.

However, at the time of the above lending, the Defendant and C had already purchased the above machinery, and the Defendant and C have consumed all of the cost of living, unlike the above loan, notified the victim of the defraudation on February 21, 2013.

B) At the time of the crime of February 21, 2013, the provisional attachment entry registration based on the preservation obligation equivalent to approximately KRW 400,000 on the land owned by the Defendant, the land owned by the Defendant, the land owned by Gangnam-si, G of Gangnam-si, and the land of Gangnam-si, H, I, and J was completed, and the Defendant was living solely at the time, but the profits derived from the sale of the Orpy was merely 30,000 won per month (the investigation record No. 50, the Defendant developed a new product at the time, but the sales place was not secured, thereby raising its profits.