The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The victim, L and the Defendant purchased the land owned by S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) and intended to establish three corporations and factories, and confirmed the said land as well as entered into a sales contract.

Of the above corporations and factories, the share of the victim among the above corporations and factories is T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “T”), M and down payment KRW 150 million, L’s share is U (hereinafter referred to as “U”), Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “N”), and the share of the defendant is N and down payment KRW 150 million, and the defendant’s share is K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “V”), and the representative in the name of J and down payment: KRW 20 million.

Therefore, KRW 60 million (criminal facts No. 1 and No. 2) received from the victim is the investment for the same business.

On the other hand, there is no fact that the Defendant provided that the Defendant would pay interest of KRW 20 million to the victim KRW 50 million after 2-3 months.

② KRW 5 million (crime 3) received from a victim was brought to the victim when it is necessary for the appraisal of a bank, and the Defendant deposited this in the name of a passbook used by L.

Therefore, the defendant did not acquire the above five million won by fraud.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a constituent element of a crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power, 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 a case where, in borrowing money from another person, the other party would have 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 would have failed to comply with the true notice, the crime of fraud is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005).