The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant is not guilty of the summary of the grounds for appeal, by fraud of 34620,00 won from the damaged person.

At the time, the Defendant, who had been under internal relations, was the victim of the Defendant’s name bank debit card, but the victim voluntarily deposited money in the connection account and used the said card, and there is no relation with the Defendant.

The Defendant asserted that the judgment of the lower court was erroneous in the determination of the sentencing, as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, i.e., the card that the Defendant received from the Defendant is a cash card issued by the Nonghyup Federation (see No. 5 of the evidence list), the fact that the Defendant’s deposit amount was not related to the Defendant’s national bank account, and the details of the Defendant’s deposit and withdrawal from the national bank account, etc.

In light of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

In light of the circumstances where the defendant denies the fact that he received money from the injured party and did not make any effort to recover damage while making a defense that makes it difficult to obtain the money, the court below decided the punishment within the scope of the sentencing guidelines by taking into account the favorable circumstances that the defendant had no criminal record after he was sentenced ten months to imprisonment for fraud in 2003, and comprehensively taking into account the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

The appellate court did not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first trial sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.