The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When the defendant borrowed money from the victim to purchase the ginseng dry field, and the purchase was delayed, only the above money was lent to another person.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

(1) The Defendant lent money to a third party on the day or following the day on which the Defendant received money from the victim.

② The Defendant stated that there was sufficient security, referring to the shares in the ginseng dry field, apartment, commercial building, etc. that does not exist in the victim.

③ The victim stated that the Defendant consistently invested in the ginseng dry field from the investigative agency to the original trial court, thereby lending money to that person.

In light of the above facts, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is sufficiently acceptable, and the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, who received money from the first victim under the name of investment in the ginseng dry field by the investigative agency; (b) the Defendant reversed the Defendant’s statement by receiving a request from the management of money for interest profits; and (c) the victim’s statement is consistent and does

(B) the statement of the witness G of the trial court against this paragraph is not trustable).

On the argument of unfair sentencing, it seems that the defendant does not seem to be seriously against the argument of unfair sentencing, such as denying the main part of the crime, etc., and the amount of the damage in this case was not paid against the highest amount (249 million won).