The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the fact that the payment of the construction cost has not been made due to such reasons as the victim and the business consultation with the victim are not proper, there was no scope of fraud against the defendant.

2. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the Defendant confessions, and the criminal intent is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to do so.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this ground as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the various circumstances presented by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant is correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant or by misunderstanding the legal principles

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.