The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant's failure to fully repay 5 million won to the victim under an agreement is merely due to the economic situation that is difficult at that time, and it does not constitute a misunderstanding of the intent to acquire by deception and deceiving the victim with the intent to acquire by deception.

B. The lower court’s sentence (1.5 million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant is excessively unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts is based on the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession, fraud is established even by willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8781, Jan. 18, 2008). In addition, in the context of fraud involving property taking advantage of property, if there is a property giving due to deception, it constitutes a crime of fraud by itself, thereby infringing on the victim’s property. It does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud even if considerable consideration was paid or there was no damage to the entire property of the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1899, Jul. 7, 200). In light of the above legal principles, the health expenses of the Defendant before and after the crime were committed, and the Defendant could have been aware of the victim’s funds lawfully adopted and investigated by evidence at the time of borrowing the Defendant’s election campaign.