The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although it did not have the intent and ability to repay the money at the time of receiving money from the victim C with the payment of the money from the victim C, and did not have the ability to repay the money from the victim.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case and acquired a total of 7,450,000 won by deceit, even though the defendant did not have any intent to repay the money from the victim at the time of borrowing the money from the victim. Therefore,

At the time of borrowing 4.4 million won from the victim on May 22, 2013, the Defendant would receive a refund of five million won of the monthly rent deposit for officetels from the victim on November 2, 2013.

In fact, while leaving an officetel around September 2013, it did not notify the victims of the above monthly rent deposit but used it for other purposes.

B. There is no objective basis to support the Defendant’s receipt of money from pro-Japaneses, and there is no fact that the Defendant received money from pro-Japaneses until now after the crime of this case.

C. The Defendant had no fixed occupation or special revenue source at the time of borrowing money from the victim, and the mobile phone overdue charge amounting to 2.5 million won was economically poor.

Defendant

If he/she fails to receive money from his/her own-friendly money, he/she is actually a person who has not been able to receive money at the time of borrowing money from the victim by making a statement that he/she received money or provided a daily work.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.