The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding: The Defendant: (a) was responsible for the vice-chairperson of the F Building located in Bupyeong-si at the time of borrowing KRW 150 million from the damaged party who engaged in the building management business; (b) however, the Defendant was responsible for the management of the building of this case from September 2012 to September 2012.

There is no false fact, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation of borrowed money.

Therefore, the defendant has committed a crime of fraud.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the judgment.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is sufficient if the deception as a requirement for fraud is all active or passive acts that have a good faith and good faith to observe each other in the transactional relationship of property, and it is not necessarily required to be a false indication as to the important part of the juristic act, and it is sufficient to establish the basis of the judgment for allowing an actor to perform the act of disposal which he wishes by omitting the other party in mistake (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5774, Oct. 28, 2005). The establishment of fraud requires a relationship between the deception and the other party’s mistake and the other party’s delivery of property or the offering of pecuniary benefits, but even if there is negligence on the part of the latter, a fraud is established.

The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, has to 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, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The intent of the crime is sufficient not to have a definitive intent but to have dolusent intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1697, Jun. 23, 2009). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged.