The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time when the Defendant borrowed from the victim the above loan amount of KRW 25 million on May 23, 2012, and KRW 5 million on May 29, 2012, the Defendant had no intention to acquire it by deception because he/she had the intent and ability to repay the above loan amount.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable 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, shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial history of the accused before and after the crime, the environment, the details and contents of the crime, and the process of transaction execution,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8651 Decided March 24, 2005, etc.).

The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined and the evidence adopted at the trial court. In other words, at the time of borrowing money from the victim, the Defendant was liable for the Defendant’s debt of KRW 50 million to H, and KRW 1.50 million to H. The unpaid benefits for employees of the limited liability company run by the Defendant were paid KRW 20 million (in investigation records, KRW 80-85), and the Defendant’s limited liability company D, which was operated by the Defendant, generated the enemy each month from June 201 to June 100 (in investigation records, KRW 83,84), and the Defendant did not notify the victim of the fact that he was liable for a large amount of debt from the victim at the time of departure from the Republic of Korea (in investigation records, KRW 85,000,000). From June 26, 2012 to January 24, 2013, the Defendant did not contact the victim with the Defendant at the time of departure from the Republic of Korea.