A. Inasmuch as the Defendant had intent and ability to repay money to the victim at the time of borrowing money, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had intention to acquire money.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant, without intent or ability, acquired the victim by deceiving the victim, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant: (b) as if the victim had been in excess of the right to operate the crowdfunding; (c) the Defendant sent the victim a sense of trust to the victim; (d) the Defendant did not repay the borrowed money one year after borrowing the money from the victim; and (e) did not comply with the victim’s demand to prepare a notarial deed; and (e) the Defendant had the ability to repay the money at the time of borrowing money; (b) however, the Defendant did not have the ability to repay the money to the victim due to the use of labor expenses or office expenses at the construction site and the use of the money as labor expenses or office expenses at the construction site; and (e) the fact that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant had the ability to repay the borrowed money as it was difficult to recognize that the Defendant had the ability to repay the money to the victim due to the lack of the ability to repay the borrowed money at another construction site; and (e) the Defendant was prosecuted

Whether fraud is established through the deception of borrowed money shall be determined at the time of borrowing, and the existence of the criminal intent of the defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, environment, contents of the crime, the process of transaction, relationship with the victim, etc. unless the defendant confessions.