The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendant, as stated in No. 2 or No. 8 of the crime sight table attached to the judgment below, had deceiving the victim.

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

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the defendant led to the confession of all the facts charged in this case in the investigative agency and court of the court below; (ii) the defendant deceivings the victim as if he had the ability to repay; (iii) the victim had concealed the fact that a lease deposit loan was made by securing a right to refund a lease deposit; and (iv) the victim clearly stated that he would not have borrowed money if he was aware of such circumstances (Evidence No. 27 through No. 8 of the crime list of the court below) (Evidence No. 2 through No. 8 of the crime list of the court below), and the reason why the victim borrowed money to the defendant as above is deemed to be due to the fact that the defendant was unaware of the victim's ability to pay; and (v) fraud was established in cases where the victim actively or passively induces a person to be notified in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith and thereby has already acquired property or property benefits, and has already been returned after the return of property or property benefits.

Even if this does not affect the establishment of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do2748, Feb. 25, 1986). As such, inasmuch as a defendant deceivings a victim of his/her ability to repay money, he/she shall not affect the establishment of a crime of fraud against all the amount obtained by deceit as stated in the facts charged even if the defendant partly repaid the amount of damage to the victim.