The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant, at the time of receiving a loan of KRW 40 million from the victim on April 27, 2018, had an intention to repay the existing debt with the said money and have raised credit, and received the loan from the first financial right and repaid the loan in full. Despite the receipt of the above money and actually repaid the existing debt, the Defendant obtained additional loan from the second financial right, etc. in the first financial right, etc., and thus, at the time of receiving the above loan, the Defendant had the ability to repay and had the intention to obtain repayment, and the Defendant had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on misunderstanding of Facts

A. In a case where the criminal defendant denies the criminal intent of defraudation, the facts constituting the subjective element of such crime are bound to be proven by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the criminal intent by nature of the object. In this case, what constitutes indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule.

On the other hand, as a subjective element of the constituent elements of a crime, it refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is permissible under the Table as to the possibility of the occurrence of the crime. The possibility of the occurrence of the crime is recognized in order to have dolusent intent, as well as the internal deliberation intent to allow the risk of the crime. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of the occurrence of the crime or not is the offender.