The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not disclose the purpose of use from the victim D and was a crime sight list as indicated in the holding of the lower court (hereinafter “crime inundation list”).

(C) On September 1, 2016, 200,000 won stated above 10 times borrowed 5 million won, and repaid 7.5 million won to the victim D on September 1, 2016. Since the above funds did not engage in deception, such as deceiving the use to the victim D with respect to the above funds, the amount of KRW 5 million stated in the list of crimes No. 10 shall be excluded from the amount of defraudation.

2) Since the Defendant borrowed 45 million won from No. 13 of the crime sight table No. 13 without disclosing the purpose from the victim D, and repaid the sum of KRW 35 million from November 4, 2016 to December 7, 2016, the Defendant must be excluded from the amount obtained by deception of KRW 35 million out of the total sum of KRW 45 million stated in the crime sight table No. 13. 13.

3) From December 2, 2016 to December 2, 2016, the victim D lent money to the Defendant under the risk of delay in repayment or repayment ability of the Defendant. As such, with respect to the money borrowed as stated in the List 19,20, there was a criminal intent of deceiving or deceiving the Defendant with regard to the payment capacity of the victim D.

It is difficult to see it.

4) Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is bound to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial power of the accused before and after the crime, the environment, the details and contents of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction, unless the accused does not make a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8651, Mar. 24, 2005). The deception as a requirement of fraud lacks the duty of trust and good faith to be followed widely in the transaction of property.