The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding the fact-finding defendant lending money to the victim, the defendant had the intent to repay the money to the victim, and in fact he/she has repaid the money to the victim via E, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the criminal intent to obtain the money.

However, as the court below rendered a guilty verdict against the defendant, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession, the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, is bound to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do1218, Nov. 13, 1990; 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994); and the crime of fraud is also established by willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8781, Jan. 18, 2008). (2) In light of the above legal doctrine, the Defendant’s assertion can be acknowledged at the time of acquiring money from the victim, and in light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.

(A) Around May 5, 2010, the victim became aware of the Defendant through the introduction of E at an investigative agency, and the Defendant provided a loan to the Defendant with a full-time loan of KRW 10 million.

“A statement to the effect that” was made (No. 6 pages of the evidence record), and the above E also made a statement to the same effect as the police investigation (No. 29 pages of the evidence record), but the Defendant did not fully pay the victim the money borrowed from the victim until November 28, 2012 when the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant.

(b).