The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, at the time of borrowing the instant loan, was proceeding with construction works at several sites, and the Defendant had a claim for the reasonable construction price, and thus, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay to the victim.

Therefore, even though the defendant did not have the intention to commit fraud, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or by misunderstanding the legal principles that the court below found guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence of a fine of KRW 3.7 million imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it can be recognized that the Defendant had a criminal intent to defraud the victim at the time of having the victim disburse the nominal amount, such as expenses, as the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had no property other than the money to be paid for construction of a new building that was built in Pyeongtaek-gun, and the operating expenses of the Company were appropriated for the borrowed money from others, including the victim, and the employee was difficult to pay wages to the victim.

2) At the time, the Defendant had a claim for the construction cost for the prefabricated-type prefabricated Building Construction, which was interrupted due to the shortage of funds by the owner, and the said construction was difficult to recover the price from the owner in a short period. Even if the construction cost was recovered, it seems unclear whether the payment can be made to the victim if it was appropriated for the repayment of the construction cost, etc. against the subcontractor.

3) Other documents submitted by the defendant.