The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not intend to obtain money from the victim F to lend money to the victim F for the “payment of operating expenses of a private teaching institute and personal debt,” and therefore did not fall under the purpose of the borrowed money. As such, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain money, such as holding the land equivalent to KRW 2.3 billion at the time,

Therefore, the defendant had the intent to commit fraud while deceiving the use of the borrowed money to the victim.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

B. Even if the defendant allegedly notified the defendant of the purpose of the borrowed money at the time of borrowing money from the damaged party, the victim borrowed money from the defendant. Thus, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a crime of fraud since it cannot be recognized that the relation between the defendant's deception and the act of granting property to

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that held the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s assertion” in the judgment of the court below on the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part. The court below stated that the circumstances (excluding the part that “the Defendant seems to have made a false statement to the effect that the Defendant applied for personal rehabilitation due to the lack of circumstances,” and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the court below and the court below. In other words, the witness K of the original court stated that (i) whether the damaged party lent money to the Defendant for any reason when the damaged party lends money to the Defendant; (ii) this statement does not interfere with the recognition of the fact that the Defendant made a false statement about the use of the borrowed money to the victim; and (iii) H around May 2012, the Defendant and the Defendant.