The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. The Defendant committed deception to the victim by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

It cannot be deemed that there was an intention to acquire money by deception or that there was an intention to obtain money from the defendant, and the victim did not lend money with the trust in human relations between the defendant and the victim rather than lending money with the intent to repay the money of the defendant. It cannot be said that there was a causal relationship between the act of deception and the lending of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the defendant had lent money in the judgment of the court below to the defendant because the defendant had committed deception to the victim, and caused the mistake that the defendant would have repaid the money as agreed by the victim, and that there was the intention to defraud the defendant.

Therefore, both the Defendant’s deception, the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s act of disposal, and the Defendant’s intent to obtain the fraud, and the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case is justifiable. Therefore

① The victim consistently stated in the police and the prosecutor’s office and the lower court that “the Defendant was given a loan to the Defendant for money as stated in the lower court’s holding.” In particular, the victim was given a favorable testimony to the Defendant in the court after an agreement was reached between the Defendant and the Defendant, but money from the Defendant was given for three months.