The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On April 3, 2012, at the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the Victim F from the victim F, and around May 31, 201, the Defendant anticipated that there would be no problem in repaying the victims’ debts in view of the market price of the building located in the Jung-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant at the time of receiving the deposit money for lease from the employee in charge of the employee in charge of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation. The victim F was well aware of these circumstances and lent money while establishing a collateral mortgage on the instant building. Therefore, even if the intent of the crime of defraudation is not recognized, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The intent of fraud, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, 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 the transaction before and after the crime, unless the Defendant is led to the crime. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a willful negligence is also sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). Furthermore, deception as a requirement of fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to be complied with in the transactional relationship with property widely, and that it does not necessarily mean an important part of a juristic act. It is sufficient to determine the basis of the judgment to allow the other party to perform the act of disposal desired by mistake, and it is sufficient to determine whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes another person to be omitted in mistake, taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, experience, and occupation at the time of the act.