The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below convicted the victims of the charges of this case by misunderstanding that there was no criminal intent to obtain money from the victims after the completion of the above sports center, and attempted to guarantee the business rights, etc. in the above sports center. The court below convicted them of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding that there was no criminal intent to obtain money.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is the constituent element of fraud in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, 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 transactions before and after the crime unless the Defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do424, Apr. 25, 1995). In borrowing money from others, in a case where, if the other party had failed to comply with the true notice of the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to be repaid if the other party had failed to comply with the true notice of the purpose of the borrowed money, the crime of fraud is established

(2) On September 15, 2005, the court below held that the Defendant and E agree to select a business operator, such as crypted and running a house in the name of E on February 2, 2003 when entering into a contract for the construction of the building of this case with S Co., Ltd. for the remodeling of the building of this case under the name of E, namely, ① the Defendant entered into a contract with S Co., Ltd. on February 2, 2003 for the remodeling of the building of this case, and then receive the deposit from S Co., Ltd. to appropriate the payment for the construction work.