The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

When the Defendant borrowed the instant loan from the victim F, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money on the date that the Defendant promised to pay the borrowed money to the victim by normally proceeding with the former Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant Corporation”) stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, and did not deceiving the victim.

Even if the defendant deceivings the victim, the victim believed sufficient security (physical security provided by the defendant's wife D and personal security of the certified judicial scrivener T which is a joint and several surety) and lent the loan in this case. Thus, there is no causation between the deception and the loan.

The sentencing (two years of imprisonment) of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, this part of the charges of this case can be fully recognized. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① In order to return KRW 300 million as the Defendant promised to the victim, or to give KRW 350 million in sales to one of the electric housing units in an amount equivalent to KRW 350 million, the final agreement on the acceptance of the instant construction site between G and the Defendant on April 21, 2010 should have been implemented.

However, at the time of borrowing the instant loan, the Defendant failed to perform the said agreement by not later than May 30, 2010, such as not being paid KRW 300 million, which the Defendant agreed to pay to G, and the Defendant did not have a clear repayment plan as to the obligation amounting to KRW 1.5 billion that the Defendant agreed to accept from G according to the said agreement. Whether there is any cause attributable to nonperformance of agreement (the Defendant is an internal problem between the Defendant and G, but the location of the cause attributable to the agreement is not an internal problem, and is not an argument in relation to the victim).