The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case even though the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the rent as indicated in the lower judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same as above in the lower court.

The court below, based on the evidence, found that the defendant did not pay the rent once after the lease of the freezingr, the defendant did not actually purchase the freezingr with the victim D, but did not pay the rent in the course of the consultation, and the defendant did not pay the rent in the course of the consultation. The defendant demanded the amount excessively high to D and did not hold a purchase agreement.

However, the freezing container is an article that can seek a substitute for a long time, and the defendant has used D's freezing container without purchasing the freezing container from time to time, and without paying D's freezing container, and the fire that occurred at the defendant's factory is more than one year after the defendant first borrowed the freezing container, so the fire has become incapable of paying the rent at the time of the lease contract.

In full view of the facts that the Defendant could not see, even if he borrowed freezing from the beginning, it is recognized that the Defendant had no intent and ability to normally pay the vehicle, and that the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s allegation and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

2) Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, we affirm the circumstances and its determination based on the above-mentioned circumstances that the court below held and its determination is just, and there is a misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.