The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court shall reject an application for compensation by the applicant for compensation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant would sell land at the time of borrowing money from the damaged party.

There is no fact that the victim did not know, and there is a possibility that the victim would lend money to the defendant in consideration of the economic ability of the defendant regardless of the

Therefore, not only the defendant did not deception the victim, but also did not have the intention of deception, and the victim borrowed money to the defendant due to the deception.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed with the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of single concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of the judgment below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the defendant's assertion and its judgment at the bottom of the space where the evidence was used among the judgment of the court, on the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case. Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by

subsection (b) of this section.

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

B. The Criminal Litigation Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the unfair argument of sentencing, has a unique area for sentencing determination, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Data submitted at the trial court.