A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the part on 1 to 4 of the criminal facts of the case of "2014 senior 4438" as stated in the judgment below) is sufficient to have the intent and ability to repay money at the time when the defendant borrowed or received money from the injured party. The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, which did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the criminal facts of "2014 senior 4438 senior 438" as stated in the judgment of the court below, and by deceiving the injured party with the intent to commit the crime of "2014 senior 4438 senior 4,000 won" as stated in the judgment of the court below, which did not amount to KRW 363 million (= KRW 158,000 won in KRW 5 million in KRW 158,000,000 in KRW). (The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the criminal facts of "2014 senior 44380 million" through 300,28.7 billion won.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) insofar as the criminal intent by deception, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is not a confession by the defendant, it shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8781, Jan. 18, 2008). In addition, in the case of fraud involving deception of property, if there is a provision of property due to deception, it constitutes a crime of fraud by itself, thereby infringing the victim's property, and even if there was a considerable payment of price or there was no damage to the entire property of the victim, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1899, Jul. 7, 200). 2) In light of the legal principles as seen above.