The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the course of conducting real estate development projects, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case in error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, even though the defendant did not pay money to the victims due to business failure and violation of joint investors' investment commitments, and did not have the intent and ability to repay or had intention to commit fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the relevant legal principles, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's re-satisfy, environment, content of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the defendant is led to confession. Since dolusence as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime is the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed as uncertain and it is acceptable. In order to have dolus negligence, the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed as uncertain and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is recognized, as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime. Furthermore, the issue of whether the actor permits the possibility of occurrence of the crime must not depend on the statement of the offender, but on the basis of specific circumstances such as the form of the act committed outside and the situation of the act, etc., the possibility of occurrence of the crime should be confirmed from

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do769 Decided April 14, 2011). In determining the credibility of a victim’s statement in support of the facts charged, the court itself is the content of the statement in order to determine the credibility of the victim’s statement.