The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of reasons for appeal (to the extent that the reasons for appeal are supplemented in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal principles: (a) the Defendant did not borrow money from the victim D, but only received money from the victim D and D to operate a partnership with the victim D and received money for investment; (b) he did not obtain money from the victim P in connection with the establishment of a welfare hospital for the elderly; (c) he did not borrow household checks; and (d) was issued at the victim P’s discount; and (e) most of the family cards were collected by the victim P; and (c) he received only KRW 10 million from the victim H, but did not receive KRW 25 million.

However, the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine 1) In a case where a criminal defendant denies an intentional act, which is a subjective element of the constituent elements of a crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved. Therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts relevant to the criminal intent in light of the nature of an object

In such a case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact ought to be determined by a reasonable method of determining the link of facts based on the normal empirical rule with the close observation and analysis capacity (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006, etc.). Meanwhile, in light of the spirit of substantial direct psychologicalism adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is apparent.