The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to fraud in mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant did not have any intent to commit deception or fraud since it was believed that it would be immediately invested by S and that it would return the damage amount to the victim with S’s investment funds, because the Defendant received investment from the victim as operating funds of D (hereinafter “D”) and did not individually borrowed the damage amount by specifying the purpose of use as funds for purchasing access roads in the Quarrying.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million as the fund for the purchase of access roads to the Quarrying, by deceiving the victim, and by deceiving the victim, and that there was a criminal intent to defraud the Defendant. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit

① The victim stated to the effect that the defendant borrowed KRW 100,000 from the investigative agency to the court of the court below consistently and the defendant borrowed KRW 100,000 as the fund for the purchase of access roads to Quarrying. The victim's statement at the court of the original instance on R, where the D representative director was involved, is consistent with this, and the credibility

Around November 13, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the above statement of the victim is difficult to be believed in light of the circumstances that the victim did not raise any objection against the victim even though the Defendant, in a monetary call with the victim and told the victim to the effect that he would have friened about the funds for the purchase of access roads, and that the victim would pay any balance for the purchase of access roads with S funds. However, the above statement of the victim was forged regarding the access roads to stone which the Defendant shown to the victim on July 2012.