The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The money that the defendant received from the victim is not 31,5797,000 won, but 22,400,000 won, and the above money is delivered when the defendant entered the house of the defendant's parent together with the victim for living together, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) First of all, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact that the amount the defendant received is 31,5797,000, as well as the circumstances that the court below properly explained in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, and the defendant's statement concerning the amount received from the victim by the prosecutor's office is specific (in particular, evidence records 251 to 255), and there are no circumstances to doubt the credibility thereof, it is possible to fully recognize the fact that the amount the defendant received is 31,5797,000. Thus, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant confessions, and the criminal intent is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to do so.

(2) The court below’s reasoning is that the court below’s judgment is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). The court below’s reasoning is as follows.