The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case as evidence even though he did not have any intention to acquire by deception the money of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles against the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to any affirmative or passive act that has a good faith and duty to observe each other in the transactional relationship of property, and it does not necessarily require that it is a major part of a juristic act. It is sufficient if it is about the basic fact of judgment for a perpetrator to make a disposition of property that the other party wishes by omitting the other party into mistake, and whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes a mistake of another person should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act, such as the transactional situation, the other party’s knowledge, experience, and occupation.

In addition, insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, is not a confession by the defendant, it is inevitable to judge by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime, and the process of transaction conducted, etc. of the defendant before and after the crime. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention but a conclusive intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do7459, Oct. 15, 2009; 2008Do1697, Jun. 23, 2009). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below are acknowledged in order to recognize that even if the defendant receives the instant money, the defendant deceivings the victim by the method as stated in the court below, and received a total amount of 60 million won from the victim.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view the facts charged in this case.