The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding ① In light of the Defendant’s business experience and work experience at the time, the Defendant did not have the ability to repay

It shall not be readily concluded.

② Although the Defendant borrowed funds for stock investment purpose, the Defendant only diverted funds due to personal circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant did not induce the victim to use the borrowed money.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant did not receive benefits until the company in the process of borrowing the instant loan was normal, but the Defendant did not notify the victim of the aforementioned situation. ② The Defendant used only KRW 6 million out of KRW 20 million to invest in stocks for one to two months, but subsequently withdrawn the full amount and used it as living expenses, etc. ③ Even if the Defendant’s assertion was based on the Defendant’s success in the investment attraction contract or the project under progress, the Defendant attempted to pay the borrowed amount upon the normalization of the company, and the Defendant appears to have no other way to repay the borrowed amount. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant was aware of the victim as to the use of debt repayment and the borrowed amount.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because a new sentencing data has not been submitted in an unfair sentencing trial. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, it is true.