The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant merely borrowed KRW 19190,00 from the damaged person under the pretext of criminal agreement on punishment, and does not borrow money in the name of office expenses and operating expenses.

2) The Defendant substantially operated C Co., Ltd. at the time of the instant case, and at the time, C had the intent or ability to repay its obligations, as there was a profit claim of at least KRW 90 million against J.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by explaining the grounds for its determination.

2) Although there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first instance judgment and ex post facto determination, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, the appellate court should not reverse without any such exceptional circumstance (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017) the first instance judgment based on the foregoing legal doctrine, and there is no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial, and it does not seem that maintaining the lower court’s judgment is remarkably unfair when compared the evidence duly examined by the lower court with the content of the lower court.

4) This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first deliberation is conducted.