The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact was 12 million won at the time of borrowing 3 million won from the victim, and only left the workplace on the following day after the loan date, but did not borrow the above money without the intention or ability to repay the money from the beginning, but the above money was not repaid due to economic reasons after the loan. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant by deceiving the victim without the intention or ability to pay the money, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the ground of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Unless the defendant makes a confession, the intention of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, should be determined by taking into account 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. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a conclusive intention but to have dolusent intention.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1697, Jun. 23, 2009). In addition, in a civil monetary lending relationship, in a case where a person is unable to immediately recognize the criminal intent of defraudation of the borrowed money with default, but he/she borrowed money by pretending that the defendant would have had no intent to repay or had no ability to repay within the due date of repayment as he/she promised to borrow money, the criminal intent of defraudation may be recognized

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do1048 Decided August 23, 1983). The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant issued the monthly salary to the victim with the details received from (ju) E from November 201 to January 2012 in order to recognize that the Defendant had the ability to repay KRW 3 million from the victim, and ② the Defendant, however, delivered the monthly salary to the victim.