The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of facts and legal principles that the Defendant did not have any credit or financial standing, and that the Defendant would use it as business funds, such as foreign magnetic furniture purchase funds.

In light of the fact that there was no fact that there was a continuous repayment of the interest on the borrowed money, the real estate owned by the defendant, and the fact that the defendant was capable of performing the repayment in view of property, such as a T&W household, etc., the defendant deceivings victims or

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, although it could not be deemed as possible.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the lower court, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated: (i) the victims may use the victims as business funds, such as the Defendant’s credit and financial power, and a foreign L&W household purchase funds, from lending money.

In other words, the defendant made a consistent statement to the effect that he had lent money in trust and demanded payment, and that he had avoided payment on behalf of various dopings; ② the defendant has used most of the borrowed money as interest payment or credit card payment unlike the promise after borrowing money; ③ since 2011, as the household store operation expenses, living expenses, interest, credit card payment, etc. run by the defendant became insufficient due to the sudden difficulties in the operation of the household store; and ③ since 2011, the defendant used money from the victims to the so-called “prevention of return”, but failed to notify the victims of these circumstances (the defendant is also recognized as the defendant who did not have paid money at the time of borrowing).