The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the circumstances of the instant complaint, even if the Defendant deceptioned the victim of the use of the borrowed money, there is no causal relationship between the deception and the victim’s act of disposal, and even if the Defendant had the intent to repay and the ability to repay at the time of the borrowing, the lower court which recognized the Defendant’s crime of fraud was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a 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 performing transactions before and after the crime unless the defendant makes a confession. In the case of borrowing money from another person, if the other party did not respond to the original notice of the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to be repaid if the other party did not respond to the original notice, it shall be deemed that the crime of fraud is established.

First of all, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below as to whether the Defendant deceivings the victim to use the borrowed money, i.e., the victim did not specifically mention the “Do” at the time of the first accusation of this case, but on January 24, 201, the Defendant lent 100 million won after 10% of its profits if the Defendant lent her mother and child loan to the Defendant only KRW 150 million,000,000,000 from January 25, 2011, and on January 27, 2011.