The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the victim did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation by the Defendant’s own visit the private teaching institute operated by the Defendant and confirmed the size of the private teaching institute, the number of originals, etc., and the Defendant did not actively deceiving the victim with regard to the ability to repay, etc., such as the Defendant’s statement that the victim’s credit is good, and the Defendant acquired the private teaching institute other than the FFA, which already operated, and was sufficient to have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money sufficiently to the victim. While the victim did not demand the principal to pay the high-rate interest to the Defendant, the Defendant did not demand the repayment of the principal and the maturity was not paid one year due to the difficult operation of the Defendant’s private teaching institute, the Defendant did not pay the remaining interest and the principal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, although it is not possible to recognize the criminal intent of

Although the Defendant asserted a mistake of facts related to the date and time of the decision to authorize the repayment plan, the decision to commence individual rehabilitation was made on June 2009, and the repayment was commenced from July 2009, the lower court found that “the Defendant was subject to the decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures on September 22, 2009, and was subject to the decision to authorize the repayment plan on January 22, 2010” was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.

Judgment

The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, shall 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 transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant confessions. The criminal intent is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to do so.

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11718, Apr. 9, 2009). The following is acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.