The judgment below

The non-guilty part (excluding the dismissed part of the application for compensation order) shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. The court below rejected the application for compensation order B by the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot raise an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the dismissed part is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The court below found the defendant guilty on a different premise, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, even though the defendant was found to have obtained a deception of 70 million won by deceiving the victim, according to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles).

3. Determination

A. The intention 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, content of the crime, process of transaction, relationship with the victim, etc. before and after the crime unless the defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034 delivered on March 26, 1996, etc.). Although in the civil monetary lending relationship, the intention of acquiring the borrowed money can not be acknowledged immediately with the default of obligation, the intention of acquiring the borrowed money can be recognized in a case where the borrowed money is obtained by pretending to be repaid even though the Defendant did not intend to repay or is unable to repay within the due date that was promised at the time of borrowing.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do1048, Aug. 23, 1983; 2017Do20682, Aug. 1, 2018). (b)

The lower court determined that the Defendant had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation at the time of each of the instant borrowings on the grounds of the circumstances stated in the reasoning of the judgment.

However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that at least there was a criminal intent to obtain the criminal intent to obtain the criminal intent at the time of each of the loans in this case.

1. First, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant, at the time of borrowing each of the instant loans, deceiving the victim with regard to the accommodation.