The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had the intent to repay and the financial resources at the time of borrowing money from the damaged party, but the Defendant failed to repay the money at the time of maturity due because the flow of the money was not smooth, and the Defendant did not intend to acquire money from the damaged party

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the victim by promising the defendant to repay the money to a prompt time without having any intent or ability to repay the money, even if the defendant borrowed money from the damaged person as stated in the judgment below. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

A. After borrowing the money as stated in the judgment below from the injured party, the Defendant notified the injured party of his repayment of the money to the cell phone message at the beginning, but thereafter, the injured party attempted to communicate with the Defendant, but did not contact with the Defendant, and the injured party seems to have contacted the victim again after he filed a complaint with the police.

B. According to a factual reply to the Defendant’s factual inquiry about the Age Credit Rating Information Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s credit rating as of September 30, 2016, near the time of borrowing money from the injured party, belongs to the lowest group of class 9, and was bearing a large number of obligations.

(c)

The Defendant had a 55 million won claim against I, and thus, there was a self-sufficiency in payment.

The argument is asserted.

According to the loan certificate submitted by the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant lent KRW 55 million to I on June 15, 2012, but the above loan certificate provides that the due date is determined by I's 1 mass production facilities and sales and profits are raised and the company is normal.

The defendant was employed in the above company due to the above company's failure to receive the above loan from the above company, but the company's circumstances make it difficult.