The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below violated the Act on the Amendment of Indictment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, in violation of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the amendment of indictment, was at a disadvantage by recognizing facts constituting an offense different from the facts charged without the amendment of indictment procedure.

B. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of fraud was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

It is unfair that the sentence of the court below (one year of suspended sentence in six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court on the assertion of a violation of the Act on the Alteration of Indictment may, within the scope recognized as identical to the facts charged, recognize facts constituting an offense different from the facts charged ex officio without the amendment of a bill of indictment if it is acknowledged that there is no concern about actual disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do7260, May 29, 2008; 2013Do9481, Oct. 29, 2015). According to the records and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the place of deception, different from the facts charged, as the testimony of the witness C of the court below, as the place of deception was established at the foreign exchange bank. Based on the arguments and evidence submitted by the defendant and his/her defense counsel, the court below acknowledged facts as criminal facts by modifying the facts charged in a more concrete manner on the defendant's repayment, financial situation, etc., and acknowledged them within the scope of the defendant's right to defense.