The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the criminal facts No. 2, there was no fact that the Defendant told C and D to take a house at the time of three districts in Gangwon-do. C and D are money as a deposit for lease to lease a loan owned by B living together with the Defendant (T after opening a name; hereinafter “B”).

(2) As to the crime paragraph (3) of this Article, the Defendant would lend money necessary for a project to create a middle and high-class trading complex to E, as stated in the facts charged, three months after the loan.

If a business operator lends money to another person to the same business operator, he/she has not made a statement that he/she would repay money on a monthly basis, and it is merely a mere borrowing of money without the intention of deception.

At the time, the Defendant had the ability to repay and continued to repay the borrowed money to E.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The relevant legal doctrine is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake and inducing a dispositive act to receive property or gain pecuniary advantage. Whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes a mistake to another person, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and the dispositive act ought to be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act, such as the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8829, Oct. 13, 2011). Whether fraud is established through deception of property should be determined at the time of receipt of the property. As long as the Defendant does not make a confession, the subjective constituent elements of fraud should be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, environment, content of the crime, and process of transaction.