The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Fact misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles that the Defendant assisted the victim to borrow money. However, in consideration of the relationship with the victim, the Defendant merely provided joint and several sureties, and there is no intention to commit fraud.

Even so, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant acquired the borrowed money.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

(1) The victim was not well-known with D, but the defendant is able to scam and assume responsibility for scambling his scam and scambling.

In other words, the victim lent money to D with the belief of this (2/31-32 of the private investigation records, 38 pages of the investigation records). Therefore, the defendant's intent and ability to repay was an important premise that the victim lent money to D.

may be seen.

② On October 6, 2015, the Defendant delivered to the victim a total sum of KRW 20 million to his/her own account on the day he/she received the remittance to his/her account, whichever is KRW 5 million.

After that, even though a part of the amount was additionally delivered to D, considerable part of the amount received by the victim seems to have been used by the defendant (2: 11 pages of investigation records, 59-61 pages of investigation records, etc.). In this regard, the defendant did not believe that "the same person who changed D fraud was believed."

“The statement is inconsistent with that of the Defendant’s lending of money to the victim.”

③ At the time of the next use, there was no particular liability property for the Defendant, and it seems that the monthly income was not a situation in which the victim was able to pay the victim’s money (two thousands of private investigation records and three-threes of private investigation records).