The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of mistake of facts, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the victim C at the time of borrowing KRW 10 million from the victim C, and personal consumption of the money borrowed from the victim on the wind at the latest time when D agreement was made. However, in light of the fact that D’s agreement amount was prepared and paid to D, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intention to defraud the victim.

B. The sentence of a fine of 6 million won imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud to determine the mistake of facts, shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the defendant’s re-power before and after the crime, the environment, the contents of the crime, the process of transaction execution

(2) On March 27, 2008, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below reveals the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the victim C for the reason that the agreement is necessary in relation to the case in which D, a partner, embezzled real estate purchase price, but actually used the amount for his own living cost, not for D, and ② at the time when the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the victim C, it appears that D had not attempted to reach an agreement while denying its criminal act; ③ the Defendant had the ability to repay KRW 10 million from the victim at the time of borrowing KRW 10 million from C, but the Defendant used the Defendant’s account at its own living expense, and there was no balance in the Defendant’s account at the time of maturity, and it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant used the aforementioned money as its living cost.