The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had monetary claims against E and F around November 201, 2014 at the time when he/she received a loan from the victim, and was operating a business together with F, and there was income. In light of the fact that the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the loan at the time of the loan, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion in detail under the title "as to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below". In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles of fraud in fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to the defendant's assertion.

In light of the fact that the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle with the vehicle loan, sold it to a third party in France and three weeks, and did not repay the loan, etc., the Defendant appears to have received the instant vehicle loan from the victim, in think of cash lending.

In this regard, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, in addition to the instant vehicle, the vehicle purchased is easily purchased and sold from time to time due to his refusal to purchase and sell the vehicle, so it cannot be viewed as having no intention of repayment according to the above circumstances. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to recognize it.