The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of borrowing money from the victim C, the Defendant had no intention to obtain the money, and there was no intention to obtain the pecuniary profit equivalent to the amount of the provisional attachment claim at the time of cancelling the provisional attachment against the victim E.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 피해자 C에 대한 사기 부분 주장에 관한 판단 차용금의 편취에 의한 사기죄의 성립 여부는 차용 당시를 기준으로 판단하여야 하고, 사기죄의 주관적 구성요건인 편취의 범의 존부는 피고인이 자백하지 아니하는 한 범행 전후의 피고인의 재력, 환경, 범행의 내용, 거래의 이행과정, 피해자와의 관계 등과 같은 객관적 사정을 종합하여 판단하여야 할 것인바(대법원 2006. 11. 23. 선고 2006도6795 판결 등 참조), 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정을 종합하면, 피고인이 피해자 C으로부터 2010. 7. 1.부터 같은 해 11. 29.까지 ５회에 걸쳐 합계 2억 2,700만원을 차용할 당시 편취 고의가 있었다고 인정할 수 있다.

A victim C stated that the market price of the building on the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F. F. 946.1 square meter and the above five-story above ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is about 50 to 6 billion won, and that D sales per day are about 10 million won, and that it may pay interest at 20-30% of profits, which may not cause concern about the repayment of borrowed money. In the process of making the instant real estate as collateral and then changing the general horse into D, it is necessary to pay the debt by entering money at the early stage, and the payment of the debt is necessary, and the payment of the debt is not problematic because the horse itself has no problem with continuous profit.

However, the defendant's statement in the court of the court below and the prosecution.