The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was merely engaged in construction with the money received from the victim and did not have any intention to obtain the money.

B. Unless otherwise, the lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud to determine the mistake of facts, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of 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 unless the Defendant confessions. The criminal intent is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to be dolusent intention

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant used the above money to work within a yacht which was contracted with the victim, but the defendant used the above money at his own cost, but it appears that the defendant would have used the premium generated at another construction site or the cost of the material and the cost of the work, even if he testified with the victim in the judgment below, the defendant would not use the money for the construction work as above.