The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant believed the horses of G and explained it to the victim, thereby borrowing KRW 50 million.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any negligence in deceiving the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) In the event that the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, is not led to the determination by taking full account of the objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions, etc., and the crime of fraud is established even

As a subjective element of the constituent element of a crime, dolusent intention refers to the case where it is apparent that the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is acceptable to do so, and there was dolusent intention.

In order to do so, there is not only awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, but also there is a internal intent to recognize the risk of the crime.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant is not able to reduce the amount of KRW 75 million as agreed with the victim, and the defendant is not able to offer the amount of KRW 1 billion as security, while recognizing the fact that the defendant cannot offer the amount of KRW 75 billion as security, in light of the fact that the general public is able to assess the possibility of occurrence of the relevant crime, based on specific circumstances such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that was externally revealed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009).