The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's friendly job offering E provided the bonds with the bond company as collateral and borrowed money to the bond company, and the defendant was not able to repay the borrowed money to the victim, and the defendant did not have the intention to obtain by deception.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In full view of the evidence in the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, on the ground that there was no fixed income at the time of the crime of this case and there was no intention of repayment or intent of repayment for the loans under the High Middle and High Installment Financing Agreement, since the contract to create the income was under way.

B. In addition to the reasoning of the judgment below's conviction, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, ① there was no fixed revenue from the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, while office operation expenses, etc., the defendant was spent at a level of KRW 1,50,000 per month. The defendant was liable for additional payment of KRW 619,643 per month. ② The defendant had a guarantee claim amounting to KRW 5,00,000 per month. ② At around May, June, 2011, E had a bond claim amounting to KRW 5,000,000 against the defendant. ③ The defendant was provided with a bond company as security and borrowed KRW 5,00,000,000 to the company company. ③ The defendant was transferred the vehicle of this case to E at the time of waiver, written consent to use the vehicle, etc. at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant did not endeavor to recover or recover the loan of this case.