The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit deception to the victim, but did not have any intention to obtain deception.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that there was no deception by the victim since the Defendant: (a) whether the Defendant committed deception against the victim; (b) whether the victim first contacted the Defendant and demanded the fee to return; and (c) the Defendant only responded to this.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, namely, ① deeming the victim to have contacted the Defendant, but this appears to have been true since the victim, who was a person in charge of loan business, first expressed his/her intent to obtain a loan at the solicitation of the telephone counselor, had contacted the Defendant first on a specific cargo.

It cannot be seen, ② through a loan consultation with the victim, if the victim pays the above amount to the victim in lieu of the high interest rate of the third financial right, the defendant made a statement to the effect that the victim would pay the above amount to the victim in the first financial right. ③ In doing so, the defendant, in addition to the financial right debt known to the victim, was borne by the victim in excess of the amount of 266,876,00 won, but the victim could not be confirmed. ④ After the loan, the defendant borrowed a total of KRW 25 million from the victim from February 18, 2013 to March 21, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the defendant did not pay the above amount to the victim in excess of the amount of 26,876,00 won, and the defendant did not pay the amount to the victim within the same day. ⑤ The defendant received the loan from the victim or the fair loan within the same day.