The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant had the ability to repay or intent to repay money at the time of borrowing money from the victim, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the intent to commit fraud in light of the fact that the Defendant borrowed money or provided security.

With respect to the loan of KRW 50 million which is the location of the defendant Q and the victim, N, which is the location of the defendant, set the due date, etc., and the victim believed N and lent KRW 50 million to the defendant. Thus, the defendant did not deceiving the victim.

The Defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim, which he received KRW 50 million from the victim, was immediately remitted to N, and KRW 8 million to R, who is the seat of Q, and thus, cannot be deemed to have acquired the entire amount of KRW 50 million.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be made 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 a case where, in borrowing money from another person, if the other party did not respond to the lending of money, he/she notified the other party of the fact as to the purpose of the borrowing or the method of raising funds to be repaid, and received money contrary to the truth, the crime of fraud is established. In such a case, the conclusion is not different solely on the ground that the security for the lending of the borrowed money was provided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10461, Dec. 22, 2011). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s reasoning duly adopted by the lower court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, which were based on the evidence.