The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The victim of misunderstanding the fact that he was well aware of the fact that he was not the borrower of money but the husband C. The judgment below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case erred by misapprehending the scope and limit of reasonable free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as well as the testimony of the witnessO and the witness Eul of the party trial, the facts charged in the instant case can be fully recognized, and contrary thereto, the witness C’s statement at the court room alone is insufficient to reverse this. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation of mistake of facts is without merit.

The victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the trial at the trial court to the effect that “the Defendant has lent money in trust and good faith to the Defendant by talking to the effect that “The Dong was a doctor, who has been in office in Q company because it does not fit to have any aptitude,” and “the apartment is owned in Korea,” and that “the Defendant has lent money in trust and good faith.” In addition, the prosecution also decided that “the part on his academic background and the statement on the Dongin was false.”

B. In addition, according to the victim's statement, the defendant's statement is that "the south Dong-dong may lend money to the defendant for assistance that needs to help purchase price of the apartment because of winning in the apartment," "the lending of money to the casino business in South and North Korea", "the lending of money has been made because it is not a money", and "the lending of money to the account designated by the defendant because it is not possible to lend money because it has been made with a card with telebanking in detail."