Therefore, the defendant listens to the statement that only he will repay the loan from the victim until October 2015, which is due date, and used as the purchase cost of H lending while he knows the loan. Therefore, the defendant is not recognized as the criminal intent of deceptive act and the criminal intent of defraudation.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, 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 performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient, not conclusive intention, but dolusent intent. In the civil monetary lending relationship, the criminal intent of the defraudation of the borrowed money can not be immediately recognized with the non-performance of obligation in the civil monetary lending relationship. However, if the defendant borrowed money by pretending as if he did not have the intention of full repayment or even though he did not have the ability to make a repayment within

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do18139, May 13, 2011). B.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim of important matters such as the purpose of the loan, intent of repayment or ability to make a repayment, etc., and the intent of the defendant's defraudation is also recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) The victim is within six months if the defendant invests in the business of this case in the investigative agency and the court of the trial.