The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had no intent or ability to commit the crime of defraudation because the Defendant received the fraternity payment from D or E, or was unable to anticipate the said fraternity at the time of borrowing the money, and therefore there was no intention or capacity to commit the crime of defraudation.

In particular, on April 1, 2009, E, which was aware of the Defendant’s difficult circumstances, lent KRW 98 million to the Defendant on its own, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from N on September 14, 2009, along with N on the N, that if the Defendant lends KRW 20,000 to another person, he/she may repay KRW 127,000,000 to the Defendant’s loan.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below, namely, ① the defendant, from January 1, 2007 to operate a large number of offices in Gangnam-gu in Seoul, and the defendant, since around 2008, the accounts operated around 2008, were paid instead of the unpaid accounts due to the accounts due to the unpaid accounts of the members of other accounts or borrowed money, and the situation where it is necessary to maintain the pertinent accounts was continued to continue to have been operated normally from September 2008. ② The defendant, under the above circumstances, was recruited to offer a large amount of the accounts and opened the accounts to maintain the normal accounts due to the previous years as the principal's qualification, and then recommended the victim to enter the bid to enter the 100 million won in the bid, and then 100 million won as the defendant and the wife entered the 100 million won in the bid, and then 100 million won in the bid.