The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

1. The court below rejected the application for compensation order filed by the applicant for compensation.

According to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation fails to file an appeal against a judgment dismissing the application for a compensation order. Therefore, the rejection part of the application for a compensation order was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In fact, the victim was aware of the location of the defendant's position and the situation of the company operated by the defendant, and the defendant did not defraud the victim by deceiving the victim.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of probation, three years of probation, three hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is sufficient if the deception as an action of fraud does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is a fact that serves as the basis for judgment in order to have the other party take an act of disposal of property that the offender wishes. Thus, in the case of taking money and taking advantage of the purpose of use, if the other party would have not borrowed money if he would have been notified of the real purpose, it shall be deemed that there is deception as an action of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2828 delivered on February 27, 1996). 2) Further, considering the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant could be sufficiently recognized that the defendant deceiving the victim B of the borrowed money without the intent or ability to repay, thereby deceiving the victim B with the purpose of use of the borrowed money, and as alleged by the defendant, the injured party's business activities, as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's claim.