The judgment below

Among the parts concerning each of the crimes in the 2019 Highest 5073 cases and each of the crimes in the 2019 Highest 6205 cases.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to each fraud in the case of 2019Da6205 in the original judgment) are a kind of economic community relationship in which the Defendant and the victim shared and operated the business. The victim knowingly provided money to the Defendant, and the Defendant used it for business purposes, thereby deceiving the victim.

shall not be deemed to have had the intent to obtain fraud from the defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the penalty of unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of October and the imprisonment of six months and the additional collection of 400,000 won for each of the remaining crimes in the holding of the lower court) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The existence of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the contents of the crime, the process of transaction, and the relationship with the victim, unless the Defendant confessions

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034 delivered on March 26, 1996). In a civil monetary lending relationship, the criminal intent of the defraudation of the borrowed money can not be acknowledged with the fact of default. However, in a case where the borrowed money is borrowed with the intent of full repayment or without the ability to repay within the due date for repayment as agreed upon by the defendant, the criminal intent of the defraudation can be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do1048 delivered on August 23, 1983). In addition, in a case where it is deemed that, in borrowing money from another person, the other party would have failed to comply with the true notice, if the other party would have been aware of the purpose of the borrowing money or the method of raising funds to repay, then if the defendant notified the fact against the truth regarding the purpose of the lending, or the method of raising funds to repay the money, the crime of fraud is