The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, after completing the construction at the time of the instant case, intended to repay the construction cost by transferring the ownership of H 1 household to the victim as a substitute. However, since the Defendant failed to complete the construction as a designated receipt of the instant case before the year, and the Defendant failed to complete the construction, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intention of defraudation at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud in relevant legal principles, is to 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 unless the Defendant makes a confession. The criminal intent is not definite intention but dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). Moreover, the subjective constituent element of a crime refers to a case where the Defendant, as indicated in the list that the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain, permits it to be committed. 2) The Defendant set up a collateral security loan on the land at the lower court and the trial court, which appears to have been rejected by the Corporation from around 190 G.M. to the effect that it would have been difficult for the Defendant to pay labor costs at the time of the instant crime.