The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The following circumstances revealed by the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misapprehension of the legal principle) are as follows. In other words, since F was unable to pay wages to its employees due to the lack of economic circumstances around 2017 and was sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Labor Standards Act, it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s statement as it is in the name of the introduction fee that the Defendant would have been paid KRW 15 million. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was guilty of the crime by fraud is recognized. The Defendant’s economic situation at the time of borrowing the loan and the source of borrowing the loan, and the Defendant did not fully repay the amount exceeding 2 years after borrowing KRW 30 million from the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The intention of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the defendant's financial history, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, relationship with the victim, etc. before and after the crime unless the defendant

In the civil monetary lending relationship, the intention of defraudation of the borrowed money can not be acknowledged, but in the case of borrowing the money by pretending to be repaid even though the defendant has no intention of full repayment or has no ability to repay within the due date as promised at the time of repayment, the intention of defraudation may be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20682 Decided August 1, 2018). B.

In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the criminal intent to commit fraud against the Defendant, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, thereby not guilty of the facts charged

1. The defendant does construction work for G apartment singing, which is constructed in a pregnant room to F.