The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) was that the Defendant had the intent to repay the borrowed money to the victim at the time of borrowing the money from the victim, and in fact, did not deceiving the victim, since it was intended to repay some of the borrowed money.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant deceptioned the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below and acquired the borrowed money.

① On July 2016, the Defendant borrowed funds from the victim to the effect that “The Defendant had filed an application for business loan with the Small and Medium Business Corporation,” and that the loan would be made in a way that it would be promptly repaid if the loan was loaned.”

The victim believed the above repayment plan of the defendant and lent funds to the defendant.

② At the time of borrowing funds as above, the Defendant applied for a loan to the Small and Medium Business Corporation under the name of the Defendant-type E, but the Defendant was not actually able to obtain a loan due to the credit standing of the J.

③ At the time, the Defendant operated C in his own name with the said J, but was liable for a large amount of debt due to the failure to operate the said C, and all the said enterprises closed down six months after the date of borrowing funds.

④ While considering that the Defendant’s repayment plan to receive a loan constitutes a cause for the victim to lend money to the Defendant, the Defendant partially repaid the loan, considering that the Defendant’s repayment plan was the cause for the victim to obtain a loan.

Even if it does not interfere with the defendant's deception and the intention of deception, it does not interfere with the defendant's deception.

⑤ The Defendant also recognized the facts charged on the second day of the lower court’s trial.