The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misapprehension of the legal principle) suggested that the victim first lends money to the defendant, at the time, the defendant did not deceiving the victim about the time of repayment, ability to repay, etc. and did not have the intention of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The deception, which is a constituent element of fraud, refers to an affirmative or passive act that generally lacks the fiduciary duty and sincerity to each other in property transaction. It is sufficient to establish the basis of judgment for an actor to conduct an act of disposal of property that the actor wishes by omitting the other party in error, rather than having the other party make a false representation as to the important part of the juristic act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004; 2016Do15084, Oct. 4, 2018). The criminal intent of deception, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial power before and after the commission of the crime, environment, details of the crime, the process of performing transactions, etc. insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession, and the criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a willful negligence is sufficient.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008, etc.). B.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of final judgment, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim with the intent to commit fraud can be fully recognized.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

① On April 1, 2013, the Defendant leased two parcels, other than Qu land, from R, KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the lease term of April 17, 2015 (in the course of operating P, page 42 of the investigation record), and the Defendant leased two parcels, other than Qu land, from R, around April 1, 2013.