The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. 1) misunderstanding of facts as to fraud: ① The Defendant’s money received from the victim is merely a partner’s money and merely borrows money from a lending institution under the victim’s name; ② Even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire money, since it was not operated differently from the Defendant’s expectation, and thus, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire money. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there was an error of law by misapprehending the facts. 2) The Defendant refused to enlist in the army and violence, such as joining the “K” organization, and refused to enlist according to that conscience. This constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act.

However, since the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment for fraud, and one year and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Military Service Act, 2019 order 1921) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. 1) Determination of the lower court’s assertion as to fraud 1) also asserted the same purport as that of this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, as well as the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence: (i) the Defendant, among the summary of the evidence (2018Kadan5051) in detail, stated in a detailed statement about the above argument; and (ii) the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that this part of the facts charged were sufficiently recognized.