The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of facts and unfair sentencing;

A. The Defendant, in accordance with the agreement with the victim, was actually engaged in the operation of a pre-shipment fishery by departing from a port in accordance with the agreement with the victim, but the Defendant failed to supply the terms of the amount equivalent to the borrowed money pursuant to the agreement because the operation was not well-grounded, and there is no fact of deceiving the victim

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court: ① L (victim’s friendship) who introduced the Defendant to the victim via telephone conversations with the police; and ② the Defendant concluded a contract at the time of the military mountain, which means that “The Defendant was able to enter into an agreement with the victim on Nov. 1, 2013; the Defendant believed that the Defendant would faithfully take a large volume of fishing at the time of the military mountain, and provided that “The Defendant introduced the Defendant to the victim who engages in the fishery products distribution business,” and stated that “The Defendant was able to submit the same amount of 130 million won from the victim around Nov. 201, 2013, from around 100 to 2000 won, the Defendant was unable to supply the same amount of 10,000 won to the victim from around 14, 201 to 10,0000 won from around 200 to 14, 2014.