A. According to the victim J's statement, etc., the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, even though the defendant was aware of the fact by deceiving the victim and deceiving 5 million won.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service hours) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On January 3, 2014, the Defendant should pay the victim J with the money borrowed from L kindergarten office located in the Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu, Seoul.

The loan of KRW 5 million was 5 million, and it was 5 months later.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed the money from the victim J as above, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay it as agreed.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the VictimJ and deceiving it, received KRW 5 million from the Victim J through the account in the name of G on the same day (hereinafter “the loan of this case”).

B. The lower court’s judgment 1) The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, so long as the Defendant does not confession

The conviction of one part of the crime ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. This also applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2255, Jul. 23, 2015).