Defendant

In light of the fact-finding (Fraud) that the Defendant used the amount of the loan, the amount of the loan received from the victim for public use, such as cost of leave, food, etc., a small period of loan, and the Defendant paid the principal or interest of the loan and the loan by remitting the total amount of KRW 21,898,310 from March 18, 2016 to August 17, 2018 to the victim, etc., the Defendant was willing to pay the principal or interest of the loan and the loan had no intention to obtain the defrauded.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and two months of imprisonment, confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The lower court’s sentence of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., g., e., e.

Judgment

The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud to judge the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant confessions, and the criminal intent is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts or circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the criminal intent to obtain fraud.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

At the time, the Defendant had no particular property or income except for the military personnel's monthly wage, while the Defendant was responsible for debt collection by bearing a large amount of debt to the lending company, and the Defendant's monthly wage was difficult to repay interest on the Defendant's debt, and it was a situation in which it was impossible to lend the Defendant's name as the Defendant's name.

The defendant stated at an investigative agency that he was able to receive a loan from the victim at a place different from his monthly wage.

However, even if the defendant's statement is made, his monthly salary at that time.