The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant received benefits from the victim G and H as the team leader at the time of borrowing money from G and H in connection with the Defendant’s criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, but since the borrowed money was less than the amount of benefits at the time, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire money.

The argument is asserted.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the original instance, the defendant could sufficiently be recognized that he/she deceiving G and H as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the original judgment and acquired money from them.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

0 At the time of borrowing money from the victim G and H, or around that time, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim’s financial resources to the effect that “the Defendant owns a building and thus has a monthly rent.” In addition, the Defendant had the victims have a wrong perception about his ability to repay the money.

0 The victims have lent money in trust of the defendant's words.

0. However, at the time of borrowing money from G and H, the Defendant already bears a large amount of obligation with a high interest agreement from financial institutions, etc., and at the time, it was difficult to cover the interest difference with the Defendant’s salary.

In addition, there was no building owned by the defendant, and there was no other financial resources for the defendant at the time of borrowing money.

2. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below on the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing is unfair because the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is somewhat different from the view of the appellate court.