A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant did not deception the victim by deceiving the misunderstanding of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant makes a confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by dolusor intention, the subjective constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed as uncertain and it is acceptable. The subjective constituent element of the crime refers to the case where dolusor intention is declared to allow it, as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime in order to have dolusor intention to recognize the risk of occurrence of the crime, and the issue of whether the actor has permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime must not depend on the statement of the offender, but on how the general public can evaluate the possibility of occurrence of the crime from the standpoint of the offender.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant, even if she borrowed money from the victim, received money from the victim without the ability or intent to pay the borrowed money, and acquired money from the victim in the name of the borrowed money, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the health care unit and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.