The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. In light of the circumstances, such as the statement of grounds of appeal submitted on March 5, 2019 that “it is difficult to recognize part of the judgment of the first instance court” or “the defendant paid money to the victim from time to time,” the Defendant appears to have asserted that the mistake of facts is also the grounds of appeal by stating that “I would like to have an opportunity for pleading once again against the judgment that received property by deceiving the victim without an intention to repay the borrowed money to the victim.”

Since the defendant did not explicitly withdraw the above argument, it is also possible to judge the mistake of facts.

On May 2, 2019, the Defendant stated that “no victim has been fraudulently or physically injured even in the reflective written statement submitted by the Defendant.”

(B) The Defendant had no intention and ability to repay money from the victim at the time of receiving money, and there was no intention to commit fraud without deceiving the victim. B. Punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts are specific enough to make a statement without any consistent and direct experience in the core part of the victim's statement. The victim was aware of the fact that the defendant was in a bad credit position, but the defendant believed that the defendant would have been able to obtain profits from the business of importing and selling and selling and selling and selling and selling the name goods. The defendant was not in a good economic situation such as bad credit standing due to a debt exceeding KRW 300 million before the victim was delivered, and even according to the defendant's statement, the defendant started the business of importing and selling and selling the name goods with no capital, and thus, the defendant was equipped with funds and economic power necessary for the success of the business.