The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant had the ability and intent to repay the money from the victim at the time of borrowing the money, so it should be deemed that the defendant had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation. However, the judgment of the court below which recognized the crime of fraud on a different premise is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are as follows: ① the Defendant borrowed KRW 2 million from the victim on April 9, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”); ② the Defendant applied for the instant loan; ② the Defendant does not have the principal and interest on his own wage or corporeal movables; ② the Defendant does not have the current insolvency status (such as his own income is unable to be repaid the principal and interest on his living expenses and debts, i.e., bankruptcy status); and there is no possibility to apply for personal rehabilitation or personal bankruptcy within 3 months thereafter; ② the Defendant did not have a plan to retire from the company currently in office within 3 months thereafter; ② the financial rights and obligations stated in the NIC-based credit service disclosure service at the time of providing credit transaction information (State), and the amount of obligation owed to the Defendant to a third party (including loans) at the time of providing a loan to the said third party, and ③ the Defendant did not have any important obligation to the said financial company at the time of signing and executing the letter of loan to the Defendant.