The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles that the defendant did not make the victim the same remarks as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below on January 2013, 2013; the victim took part in the defendant's entertainment shop business of this case; the defendant was well aware of the defendant's economic situation and lent money to the above entertainment shop; the defendant had the ability to pay the defendant by raising sales amounting to 30 million won or more per month at the time when he first received money from the victim; and the defendant is difficult to operate the above entertainment shop.

In light of the fact that the defendant requested funds and actually used the money received from the victim to operate the above entertainment store, the amount of the capital invested by the defendant was not significant in the first invested amount in light of the size of the entertainment store in this case, and whether the capital invested by the defendant in the structure of the business of the entertainment store is not important or not, the defendant deceivings the victim.

It can not be seen that the victim caused a mistake by the Defendant’s deception, thereby doing property disposal.

It is not so.

Even if the money listed in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 2 of the List of Offenses Nos. 1 and 2 in the decision of the court below is the money paid by the victim who had been the relationship with the defendant at the time, or recommended and recommended the operation of the amusement store. The money listed in paragraphs 3 and 6 is the money paid for the expenses after the victim installed the goods of the air conditioner agency operated by himself. The money listed in paragraph 8 does not receive the money from the victim because the defendant borrowed the money to the victim, but the defendant transferred the money from the victim to I for the employees of the cooperation company installing the air conditioner who received the money to pay 6 million won for the money.

Therefore, at least the money of each of the above items was acquired by the defendant by acquiring the money of the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the punishment unfair to sentencing (a prison term).