The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

On October 3, 2007, 2009, and April 14, 2010, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim for three times on three occasions and did not set the due date and paid interest from the respective borrowing date to the end of 2011.

After that, although the victim requested to repay the principal in 2012, the defendant could not pay the money due to the deficit of the defendant while selling the farmland.

Around the above borrowing date, the defendant had the intention to repay and had the ability to repay.

The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime.

(3) The court below stated that the defendant would have repaid 200,000 won on April 14, 201 to 195 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do424, Apr. 25, 1995; 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: (i) the victim loaned money to the investigative agency after he borrowed the money to the victim for the payment of the money needed for the payment of the money to the victim on Oct. 3, 2007; (ii) the victim lent money to the victim on Oct. 3, 2007; and (iii) the defendant paid 4.5 million won as personnel expenses; and (iv) the defendant paid 200,000 won for a promissory note with the face value of KRW 178 through 180,280,94).