The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have no intention or ability to give the victim the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site of this case by paying the deposit of KRW 300 million to the O, which is an investor at the construction site of this case, and obtaining the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site of this case. Therefore, there was no intention to commit deception by deception and there

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court on the erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The court below rejected the assertion on the argument following the summary of the evidence.

The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and in particular, the defendant argued that he paid the deposit amount of KRW 300 million to L Co., Ltd., but L Co., Ltd. did not have received the deposit amount of KRW 300 million from the defendant (Evidence No. 53, 62). ② The defendant prepared L Co., Ltd. deposit sheet (Evidence No. 104, 105 pages) which was engaged in the instant E-related business even though he paid money to L Co., Ltd. (Evidence No. 104, 105 pages). ③ The defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from F around April 20, 2015 and concluded a contract with F to grant the right to operate the “box restaurant” at the construction site of this case (Evidence No. 82,84 pages) but around June 5, 2015, the defendant would not receive the right to operate the “box restaurant” from the victim (Evidence No. 5000,575).