The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) revealed the fact that the Defendant applied for individual rehabilitation against the victim before borrowing the instant money from the victim. At least, the Defendant had been aware of the fact that the Defendant had already been unable to do so as to consider the individual rehabilitation procedure at the time of lending the instant money to the Defendant, and was aware of the fact that the Defendant had been unaware of this fact. The lower court erred in misapprehending the rules of evidence or misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, on the grounds that the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the instant money at the time of borrowing the instant money from the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant had an intent to do so, and had no intention to commit fraud

2. Determination

(a) deception, which is a requirement for relevant legal fraud, means any affirmative or passive act that has a good faith and good faith to comply with each other in property transactions;

It is sufficient that there is no need to make false representation on the essential part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient that there is a fact that serves as the basis of judgment for an actor to conduct a disposal of property that the actor wishes by omitting the other party in error.

Therefore, in cases where it is deemed that the other party to a transaction would not engage in the transaction if he/she received a notice of certain circumstances, a person who obtains property is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith.

Nevertheless, the failure to notify it constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by impliedly disregarding the fact that it would be known.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828 Decided April 9, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20682 Decided August 1, 2018). In addition, the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime, is before and after the crime, unless the defendant makes a confession.