The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous or misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles, although the defendant did not have committed deception against the victim in the course of borrowing, there was no intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim at the time of borrowing, and there was no intent to obtain fraud, and considering the circumstances that the victim consented to the rehabilitation procedure of the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) the defendant continuously exchanged the victim at around 200 after becoming aware of the first time, and continued to maintain friendship with the victim; (b) around around 2007, the victim disposed of the cable broadcasting company operated by the victim and held considerable funds in cash or deposit form; and (c) the defendant seems to have been aware of the financial situation of the victim at the time; (b) the defendant was engaged in the construction business in the operation of the company, such as NF, U.S., V., and O.; and (c) the defendant was holding three ventures, such as X-Mel, Yel, Zelel, etc. located in Seo-gu, Busan, and owned three ventures, such as the accommodation business, and conducted real estate lease; (d) around 2005 and around 207, at around 67 billion won in the process of newly constructing the Zel, it appears that the above financial situation exceeded the construction price due to an individual loan or loan.