The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant was capable of repaying the loan, but the Defendant was unable to repay the loan to the wind to be recommended in the workplace.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant had no intention to commit fraud, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intention to commit fraud.

2. Determination

A. The deception, which is a requirement for fraud doctrine, refers to any affirmative or passive act that has a good faith and good faith to comply with each other in property transaction.

It is sufficient that there is no need to make false representation on the essential part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient that there is a fact that serves as the basis of judgment for an actor to conduct a disposal of property that the actor wishes by omitting the other party in error.

Therefore, in cases where it is deemed that the other party to a transaction would not engage in the transaction if he/she received a notice of certain circumstances, a person who obtains property is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith.

Nevertheless, the failure to notify it constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by impliedly disregarding the fact that it would be known.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828 Decided April 9, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20682 Decided August 1, 2018). Moreover, the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, relationship with the victim, etc. of the criminal defendant before and after the crime, unless the criminal defendant makes a confession.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034 delivered on March 26, 1996). B.

In this case, the following circumstances can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court.

(1) The defendant is 2.5 million won per month at work when he/she takes a loan from a victim bank.