A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. The lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged was erroneous by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, has to 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 performing transactions before and after the crime unless the defendant makes a confession, and the criminal intent is not definite intention, but dolus intention. (See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11718, Apr. 9, 2009, etc.) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the victim found the defendant in his apartment living in the investigative agency and "I want to complete 30 million won after making a loan to 1.5 billion won for the defendant's own joint and several surety, so if the defendant received a loan from his own guarantor to the extent of 1.5 billion won for the defendant's establishment of a corporation and 1.5 billion won for the defendant's joint and several loans, but the defendant did not receive 1.5 billion won for the defendant's establishment of a corporation.

In other words, the Defendant made a specific statement (Evidence 26 pages) to the effect that he/she received the loan and did not repay the loan amounting to KRW 45 million to the Defendant in spite of a series of demands made over several times. ② The Defendant also made an investment in the investigative agency by lending money from his/her own private village D for the revenue franchise business.