The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, obtained the victim, and did not have the intent to repay money from the victim and had the ability to repay money at the time of borrowing the money, so the crime of fraud is not established.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

The court below, based on the circumstances stated in its holding, found that the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant acquired money by borrowing money from the injured party even though he did not have the intent or ability to repay the money from the injured party.

In light of the facts charged, all of the charges of this case were convicted.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the lower court, under favorable circumstances, determined the sentence (0 months) by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant did not have any weighted degree of deception of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant did not have been punished for the same crime prior to the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant did not have any criminal record more severe punishment than the fine; and (d) the amount of fraud by the instant crime is considerably large; and (b) the Defendant did not have any damage recovery at a disadvantage; and (c) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after

The grounds for the court below's improper sentencing alleged by the defendant appear to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above conditions of sentencing changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and when considering the above sentencing conditions, the court below's punishment is at the discretion.