The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding Defendant received KRW 48 million from the injured party on September 25, 2015, and received KRW 9 million from F. However, this is not a money borrowed from F to H on September 11, 2015 and borrowed KRW 50 million from H on September 11, 2015 to lend it again to F, and is not a money that he/she received from the injured party, nor a money that he/she received from the injured party is not a money that he/she acquired, and there is no fact that he/she deceiving the injured party, such as written in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The prosecutor of the misunderstanding of legal principles argues that the defendant acquired the victim's claim against F by means of receiving repayment from F on behalf of the victim (9 million won). However, since the victim's claim against F was changed to a new bond, the victim's claim against F was changed to a new bond, so the victim suffered property loss by disposing of the amount of nine million won.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on disposal of property or acquired money.

(c)

The punishment of six months of imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged and acquired money can be fully recognized.

① He stated to the effect that he came to know F by introducing the Defendant at the court of original instance, and that he borrowed money from F to the effect that he borrowed money and borrowed KRW 50 million.

He stated that H’s statement on this background is consistent with F’s statement at the investigation agency and the court of original instance, and that the Defendant also lent KRW 50 million to H, other than himself, to F.