The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant merely explained the circumstances leading up to the receipt of a child care center while meeting parents E, and there was no warning that the victim D’s reputation as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and that there was no interview with parents F, and that there was no interview with parents F, and that the Defendant is not the Defendant but H.

Nevertheless, the court of original judgment has erroneous determination of facts that found the facts charged of this case guilty on the basis of the statements of victims and G, etc. without credibility.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: ① at the time of counseling with the defendant, the witness E of the court below clearly stated that the victim did not properly take over the necessary expenses from the defendant at the time of counseling with the defendant, and the victim talked that the financial part of the child care center was not transparent at the time of the operation of the child care center (the trial record 67 pages); ② the defendant argued that the defendant was F and F were H, but the witness F of the court below clearly stated that the victim was the victim's telephone from the part of the child care center at the time of the call, and that the victim was "the new president" (the trial record 105 pages), ③ the victim's statement, G's statement, and the agreement between the defendant and the victim to take over the child care center from the victim, and that the victim did not take over the existing necessary expenses from the victim as necessary expenses, and thus, the victim did not take over the child care center as the transferee of the child care center as necessary expenses.