The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the money that the Defendant, on May 4, 201, lent to B on May 4, 201, KRW 40 million to B on the face of May 4, 2011, the Defendant initially lent KRW 40 million from his post office account to B by cash again.

After the assertion (No. 2-1 of the investigation record No. 80), 50 million won was lent in cash 36 million won and 14 copies for KRW 1 million.

I argued that the investigation records (No. 2-1, No. 556, 557 of the investigation records), and 40 million won in cash in the trial of the party, and 36 million won in four copies of the original check.

As argued, there is no consistency in the statement on the loan amount itself.

B leased B and thereafter agreed that B shall own the land and building in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the status of payment of part of the purchase price, in lieu of repayment of the said loan obligation, as the Defendant owned, the instant real estate was owned by the Defendant.

Therefore, it is not false accusation that the defendant filed a complaint against B as a crime of embezzlement of part of the proceeds from the sale of real estate in this case and fraud of security loans of KRW 15 million. The registration under the name of the defendant, which completed the real estate in this case, is not registered under the name of the trust.

However, since the court below found all of the facts charged in this case guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to accept the argument that the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant real estate in lieu of paying KRW 40 million a loan to B, and rather, the instant real estate was acquired.