A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case in spite of the fact misunderstanding and the misunderstanding of legal principles, although the defendant did not deceiving the victim by deception. The court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime. The criminal intent is sufficient, not conclusive intention, but dolusent intent, and the criminal intent of defraudation of borrowed money can not be acknowledged immediately with default in the civil monetary lending relationship. However, in the event the Defendant borrowed money with the intent to make a certain change or with the absence of ability to repay within the due date for payment as if the Defendant did not have an intent to repay, the criminal intent of defraudation may be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3101, Oct. 15, 201).