The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no factual misunderstanding or misapprehension of the legal doctrine that the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it can be recognized that the Defendant acquired money from the injured party, such as the facts charged.

The victim, from the investigative agency, “at the time, the defendant was under a fiduciary relationship based on several financial transactions, personal relations, etc., but the defendant is required to pay the construction cost, and he/she will pay the construction cost immediately if he/she receives the construction cost.

I borrowed money with only a loan certificate.

A consistent statement is made in detail with regard to the circumstances in which the Defendant borrowed money to the effect that the Defendant would have prepared for the victim’s contact with the victim, and that the F, an agent of the Defendant, was to find the victim and to receive the said money, and the delivery method thereof.

It is difficult to reject the credibility of the statement itself solely on the ground that the payment period was not determined at the time of lending money or that other collateral means was not provided.

In addition, the employee was employed as the employee of the defendant.

F also, at the time of investigation by the police and the prosecution, the defendant was instructed by the defendant, and the victim was found at the time of investigation by the police and the prosecutor's office, and the victim was prepared three times as stated in the facts charged.

Unlike other monetary transactions, I made a detailed statement on the fact of borrowing to the effect that "I think that only the loan was received, but only the defendant did not know about the direction of the defendant," and I made a detailed statement on the process, method, etc. of each documentary loan.

The contents of each statement between the victim and F are consistent with the main parts.