The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation at the time of borrowing money from the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles 1) insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the relevant legal principles, has to be determined by comprehensively taking account of 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, such criminal intent is not definite intention, but does not have to be dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). In addition, in a civil monetary lending relationship with the civil law, the criminal intent of defraudation of the borrowed money can not be recognized immediately with the fact of default, but if the Defendant borrowed money from the perspective of the fact that he/she would have no intention to repay or promised to repay it within the due date of maturity, the victim can be recognized as having to have the capacity to repay money to the victim by lawfully adopting the aforementioned legal principles from 20 weeks to 80 weeks (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do10483, Aug.23, 19, 198).