The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant, at the time when the defendant borrowed 30 million won from F from F, was sufficiently able and able to repay the above borrowed money, but due to the rapid aggravation of the economic situation after the rapid aggravation of the economic situation, was not immediately complied with the F's request for the full repayment of the borrowed money, and there was no deception from F. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found him guilty of the facts charged in the fraud of this case was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, one year of community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. First of all, as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the establishment of fraud by defraudation of the borrowed money should be determined at the time of borrowing. Thus, even if the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing, if the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money thereafter, it is merely a non-performance under civil law, and it cannot be said that criminal fraud is established. Meanwhile, as long as the Defendant did not make a confession, the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, should be determined by taking into account objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s history before and after the commission of the crime, environment

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10770 Decided February 14, 2008). B.

In this case, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, and the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, ① the defendant, after having been employed by the J Insurance Company as an insurance solicitor for six years and has been employed by the J Insurance Company as a D branch insurance solicitor around August 2009 while serving as D branch insurance solicitor around December 2008, the defendant became aware of the victim F, a nurse, who was in charge of the review of the legality of the insurance contract in the K Company, around August 2009, and ② the victim was introduced by the defendant around September 2009.