The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the victim borrowed the vehicle purchase fund from the victim, the Defendant was unable to repay due to the difficulty in the sudden economic situation, and there was no intention to acquire money from the victim at the time of borrowing money from the victim.

B. The sentence of a fine of three million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud to determine the mistake of facts, is 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 transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions. The intent of the crime is sufficient, not a conclusive intention, but a willful negligence.

(2) In light of the following circumstances established by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1652, May 8, 2008). In other words, the Defendant borrowed 10 million won in total from the victim to pay the purchase price of the vehicle, i.e., the Defendant borrowed 10 million won in return for the purchase price of the vehicle from the victim. However, the Defendant appears to have actually used the said money for the repayment of personal debts without using it as the purchase price of the vehicle. (2) In light of the above, the Defendant appears to have had no ability to pay the personal debts amounting to KRW 10 million at the time when the Defendant borrowed 10 million in total from the victim as above, the Defendant purchased the vehicle from the beginning without the intention to purchase the vehicle and then sold it again, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant acquired it by receiving the money from the victim as the purchase price of the vehicle.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the charged facts guilty is proper, and contrary to the defendant's assertion, it erred by misconception of facts and adversely affecting the judgment.