The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

When the defendant borrowed money from the victim, it was difficult to manage the gas station operated by the defendant at the time of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

The defendant is not in a bad credit position or the defendant was in a bad credit position.

First of all, the victim made an investment in relation to the gas station, but the defendant did not make the same statement as the facts charged to the victim, and the defendant had the intent and ability to pay the borrowed money.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's fraud is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant in the judgment of the court below also argued the same as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the decision on the defendant's argument under the title "the judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's argument".

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough manner with the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the ground that no new data to be considered in the health room and the trial have been submitted.

In full view of the factors revealed in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate, and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope.

This part of the defendant's assertion is justified.