The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was self-sufficient at the time of the instant crime, and there was an intention to repay the borrowed money to the victim by operating the instant golf practice range, and even though it was not recognized as the intention of defraudation, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, is to 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 performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is not definite intention but dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). In addition, the subjective constituent element of a crime element means a case where the lower court, despite the uncertainty of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, permits it as well as the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the fact at an investigative agency is deemed to have been owned by the victim of the instant golf practice range from around 201 to KRW 200,000.