The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation in the course of the crime of this case, and the victim was well aware of the economic situation of the defendant, and therefore there was no deceit for the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The relevant legal principle of fraud is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by deceiving him/her, and by inducing his/her disposal act, thereby receiving property or obtaining pecuniary benefits. Therefore, there should be causation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act.

In addition, insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is not the confession of the defendant, it shall be determined by taking full account of the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history and environment before and after the crime, the background leading to the crime, the details of the crime, and

The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a willful intention is also sufficient.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8297 Decided December 11, 2008, etc.). In a case where a criminal act is committed, deception as an act of fraud is sufficient if it is related to the fact that the other party does not necessarily have to be subject to false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, but is about the fact that is the basis of judgment in order for the actor to carry out a disposition of property which the actor wishes to carry out by mistake. Therefore, in a case where the use belongs and borrows money, if the other party would have not borrowed money if he had been notified of the real purpose, the deception as an act of fraud is deemed to have been committed.

(2) The defendant and his defense counsel at the court below asserted the same as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below, and the court below asserted the same as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below.