The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant had already supplied food to prisons at the time of the crime of this case, there was no demand from the victim for the money as a trade secret, and the defendant borrowed money as a trade secret, but the joint business could not proceed as scheduled on the wind that the victim failed to perform the obligation under the contract of the same business as the promise, and the above borrowed money could not be repaid. At the time, the defendant had no intention to acquire the money.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts also asserted the same purport, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant’s assertion was stated in the part of “the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion”, by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

In comparison with the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below, G, which was registered as the representative director of the corporation established by the defendant and the victim, was present as a witness in the court of the court below, and stated that "at the time, the defendant was present as a witness in the court of the court of the court below that "at the time, there is a need for street funds in order to deliver to the correctional institution. There is a bid entering the correctional institution. There is a extreme rain, and a corporate card is required to do so." The above statement of G was a very reliable statement that was based on the pocketbook in which the defendant directly recorded his talks from the defendant at the time, and the defendant did not perform his duties under the joint business agreement (the trial record)."