The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and finding the Defendant guilty.

There is no fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim as stated in the facts charged, thereby deceiving the victim to use it.

The Defendant suffered difficulties due to the expenses of the parent’s hospital, but the victim had sufficient time to report this fact and borrowed money for hospital expenses and office expenses, etc. It is nothing more than that of the victim. The victim, while showing a written estimate in the complaint, is expected to repay the loan that he/she received from a guarantee insurance company by presenting a written estimate.

Denotation

In the prosecutor's statement protocol, the facts are not true with a written estimate.

I have lent the reasons for living expenses, corporate operating expenses, etc. over several times.

The contents of the statement are inconsistent, such as different statements.

The victim himself was at risk to receive high interest rate, or was not at the risk of the defendant's deception.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment and a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant had received money by deceiving the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

(1) As to Article 1-A of the facts charged, even if the defendant borrowed money from the injured party due to lack of any special revenue or property, he/she would lend money in the name of office operating expenses and make a full payment within several months without any mold, even though he/she did not have any intent or ability to repay such money.

The defendant was aware of the damaged person, and the assets held by the defendant at the time of the case areO.