The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal [the fact of fraud by the person who committed fraud on October 26, 2012 (Article 1 of the facts charged)] The Defendant was able to persuade the lessor and lease the lessor at a lower monthly rate than other stores, but the victim paid a honorarium of KRW 3 million with the indication of the horses, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant did not defraud the said money by deceiving the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the 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 transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant is led to his confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by willful negligence, it refers to the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, which is the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime of willful negligence is expressed to be uncertain, and there was an incomplete intention.

In order to determine the possibility of criminal facts, not only has the awareness of the possibility of criminal facts, but also there is a internal intent to allow the risk of criminal facts. It does not depend on the statement of the offender whether the offender has accepted the possibility of criminal facts, but also on the basis of specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act performed outside the country, it is necessary to confirm the psychological condition from the offender’s standpoint (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the defendant’s efforts, the victim who became able to lease the store 103,00 won a monthly rent.