The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that the defendant had a large amount of debt at the time of the loan of this case, but there was no intention to repay the loan, and therefore there was no intention to commit a crime by deception. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On April 13, 201, the Defendant stated in the facts charged of the instant case that “The Defendant would pay KRW 500,000 to the Defendant’s bank account (C) with the Defendant’s credit loan from the workplace until March 26, 2014, by phoneing the victim Nos. 500,000,000 won to the Defendant’s bank (C) located in Ansan-gu, Seosan-si.” The Defendant received KRW 500,000 from the victim company.

However, in fact, the Defendant was at the time liable to pay more than KRW 100 million due to bank obligations and card loans, and the Defendant was at the time paid the interest, so even if he borrowed money from the victim company, he did not have the ability to pay the money as agreed.

In this way, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim company.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged, on the ground that according to the Defendant’s partial statement, D’s written statement and its attached documents, accusation, etc., the criminal intent of defraudation of the Defendant can be recognized.

C. The judgment of this court is 1) insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is not a confession by the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the crime by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of performing transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6659, May 10, 2012). Meanwhile, the recognition of conviction is a judge.