The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, despite the fact that the defendant borrowed 141,190,000 won from the victim from October 31, 2007 to December 24, 2008. However, the repayment of 61,50,000 won out of the principal amount was made, and on March 29, 2009, due to the occurrence of the accident where the wind of the defendant was repeated and the employee died among the Chinese New Factory Construction Corporation, the defendant failed to repay the borrowed money to the victim. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, even though it is difficult to see that the defendant was guilty of

B. Even if the Defendant’s conviction is acknowledged, in light of the overall circumstances, such as the payment of KRW 61.5 million out of the amount of damage and the Defendant’s health status are not good, the sentence of imprisonment by the lower court against the Defendant (one and half years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, has to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not confession, such criminal intent is sufficient not to have a definitive intent but to have dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1697, Jun. 23, 2009). In addition, in a civil monetary lending relationship under the civil law, the criminal intent of defraudation of the borrowed money can not be acknowledged, but if the Defendant borrowed the money by pretending that the Defendant would have no intent to repay or had no ability to repay within the due date of repayment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do1048, Aug. 23, 198). 2)