The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Compared to the facts charged, the Defendant borrowed a sum of KRW 50,000,00 from the victim as stated in the facts charged, however, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay to the Defendant at the time of borrowing. At least, the victim was sufficiently aware of the progress of the business promoted by the Defendant and was sufficiently expected to risk delay in payment in the future, and the victim did not have the intent to commit fraud, not by deceiving the victim, because the maturity was not determined.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, even though he did not have the intent and ability to repay as stated in the facts charged, by deceiving the victim with the intent of defraudation, thereby deceiving the victim a total of KRW 50,00,000 from the victim.

Therefore, it is just that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

1 The victim became aware of the defendant by introducing B around 2014, "I became aware of the defendant by the introduction of B to this court."

The Defendant, while indicating her financial ability and ability, agreed to lend money to China for a period of KRW 20 million.”

After that, I have lent 30 million won as it is necessary to pay money individually.

The Defendant borrowed money as above.