A. The Defendant was sufficiently able to repay the loan to the Defendant around 2013, when he borrowed money from the victims. Since around 2014, the Defendant was unable to repay the loan due to the occurrence of unexpected business difficulties, and the victims were well aware of the Defendant’s business and financial status at the time.

Therefore, there was a criminal intent of deceiving victims or deceiving the defendant.

In the absence of such a determination, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts about fraud 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession, and the crime of fraud is established even by willful negligence. The subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is acceptable as it is stated that there was willful negligence.

In order to determine the possibility of occurrence of a crime, not only has the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, but also there is a internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether an offender has accepted the possibility of occurrence of a crime is not dependent on the statement of the offender, but also on the basis of specific circumstances, such as the form of an act externally expressed and the situation of an act, etc., the possibility of occurrence of a crime should be assessed by the general public. The psychological condition should be confirmed from the standpoint of the offender, and money from others.