The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant had the intent to pay the Defendant’s debt to the Victim Dog Capital at the time of the instant loan, and the monthly installment was 245,000 won and there was no intention to commit fraud because the Defendant had the ability to repay the debt. However, the Defendant was also unable to pay the instant loan obligation on the wind that was caused by fraud to E.

2. The judgment of the defendant alleged that he had no criminal intent to obtain deceptive money, so long as the defendant did not make a confession, the criminal intent to obtain deceptive money, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial power, environment, details of the crime, and process of transaction before and after the crime. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record: ① at the time of obtaining the instant loan, the defendant has a liability of 23 million won in total, including 3 million won in mountain machine, 12 million won in Hyundai Capital, 4.7 million won in purchase cost of cell phone, and 2. The defendant had no property in this case; ② the defendant had the right to obtain a loan from the E to the 200,000 won in order to have it difficult to obtain a loan from the 200,000 won in consideration of the fact that it had been difficult to obtain a loan from the victim to the 200,000 won in consideration of the fact that he had purchased the instant vehicle as a new vehicle.