The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time when the Defendant borrowed KRW 70 million from the victim, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was conducting basic excavation works, etc. among the military ports and ports maintenance and dredging works, which were located in the shipbuilding industrial complex development projects, and the projects for the creation of the shipbuilding industrial complex, which were the foundation excavation works on the side of Seo-gu and Seo-do, and the typhoon damage restoration works, and was able to fully repay the borrowed money to the victim after receiving the payment for the above construction works. However, the above payment for the completed portion of the construction was aggravated due to the unexpected redemption of advance payment by the Gunsan Regional Port and Port Office, etc., and thus, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain by deception.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account 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 makes a confession. Since dolusence as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime is also established by dolus negligence, it refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed to be uncertain and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is accepted, as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime in order to establish dolus negligence, it is necessary to consider the possibility of occurrence of the crime in order to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime, and the issue of how the offender permits the possibility of occurrence of the crime without depending on the statement of the offender, and the possibility of occurrence of the crime by the general public is assessed.