The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant had the intent and ability to supply the goods to the victim and had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the criminal intent to acquire the goods.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud to determine a mistake of facts, 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, insofar as the defendant does not confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a conclusive intention but to have dolusent intent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008, etc.). Comprehensively taking into account the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court and the party, the Defendant may receive the price of goods from the victim without the intent or ability to produce and deliver the return cart, the non-fuse type electric cart, etc. as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and receive the loan from the victim without the intent or ability to repay, and thus, it is determined that the Defendant has a criminal intent to obtain the loan from the victim with no intention or ability.

1) On September 13, 2012, the Defendant received the first price for the goods from the victim, while having no particular property at the time, the credit rating was class 7 with no good credit rating. From June 2012, the Defendant was in arrears with the wage of 50 million won paid from the victim on September 26, 2012. (2) The Defendant used the entire amount of KRW 50 million paid from the victim on September 26, 2012 as the rent for the place of business and the price for the enclosed transaction parts. On October 13, 2012, the Defendant was in arrears with the payment of KRW 48 million in excess of KRW 95%, which was paid from the victim on October 15, 2012, and was populated with the payment of KRW 50 million until October 15, 2015.