The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant merely borrowed money from the damaged party and did not repay the money due to the change of circumstances, but had the intent to repay and ability to repay the money at the time of borrowing the money, and there was no intention to defraud the victim at the time of borrowing the money.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it found guilty of the facts charged in this case.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) In the event that the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal principles, is not led to a determination by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime, so long as the defendant does not confession, the crime of fraud is established even by willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8781, Jan. 18, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the fact of deceiving the victim is sufficiently recognized, even though the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay, so there is no error of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension

① On December 12, 2008, the apartment site secured by the Defendant was entirely entrusted to this real estate trust, and the person who has the priority interest in the trust contract was designated as the excellent mutual savings bank and C.

In addition, first of all, the amount of the beneficiary's security is equivalent to KRW 7.16 billion, so the real estate was in fact not worth being secured.

② According to the statement by the Defendant’s investigative agency, the funds for the apartment execution project at the time are not prepared.