The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant had the intent and ability to repay 3 million won from the victim at the time of borrowing it, there was no intention to commit fraud. Although there was a fact that the defendant stated that the victim was "Isn't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l't l'

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is not a confession by the defendant, the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime is committed, and the criminal intent of the crime is not definite intention but not definite intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1697, Jun. 23, 2009). In addition, in a civil monetary lending relationship under the civil law, the criminal intent of defraudation of the borrowed money cannot be acknowledged with the fact of nonperformance, but if the defendant borrowed the money by pretending that the defendant would have no intent to repay or had no ability to repay by the due date of the loan, the criminal intent of defraudation can be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do1048, Aug. 23, 1983).