The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not borrow money by making a false statement to the victim F that “The two children have no university tuition fees, which would cause them to lend KRW 20 million,” or that “to repay money after one month,” and did not intend to commit fraud, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the appellate court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was found to have received KRW 20 million by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is rejected.

1) The victim F was understood from the standpoint of raising awareness that the Defendant was in need of enrollment fees for two children from the investigative agency to the appellate court, thereby lending KRW 20 million to the point of view of raising awareness.

In consideration of the fact that G is written in the loan certificate (Evidence No. 70 page of the evidence record) . (Evidence No. 17 page of the evidence record) and the purport that G is written in the name of G in Incheon as the guarantor, and the house of G in Incheon as the monthly rent is changed from the monthly rent, the above statement by the injured party is credibility.

2) The Defendant borrowed the above money from H by lending KRW 20 million to H without saying the specific place of use.

The argument is asserted.

However, H, at the appellate court, present as a witness, loaned the Defendant’s money to the Defendant, “Abreging from the Gun Armed Forces,” with only KRW 20 million loaned to the Gun Armed Forces, and there was no money.” The Defendant stated the above contents to the Defendant, who was frightd, due to the absence of money. Ultimately, the Defendant was 20 million from the damaged children’s college enrollment fees.