A. A. Fact-misunderstanding (Defendant) although the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, it does not lend money on the ground of national tax payment, but does not lend money from the beginning with no intention or ability to pay.

B. While the Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (an amount of eight million won) is too too unreasonable, the Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s sentence is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is sufficient if the deception as an act of fraud does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is true that it constitutes the basis of judgment to require the other party to make an act of disposal of property that the offender wishes. Thus, in a case where a person uses money and borrows money, if the other party would have not borrowed money if he had notified the real purpose, the deception as an act of crime of fraud should be deemed to have been made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do707, Sept. 15, 1995; 95Do2828, Feb. 27, 1996). In light of these legal principles and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined in the court below and the first instance court, the defendant is likely to have borrowed money from the damaged party, and have not been able to have paid money from the beginning.

A) The victim may consistently obtain a certification from an investigative agency to issue a national tax in arrears and proceed with the construction work, and further, subcontract the construction to the victim.

required to lend money at the same time.

statement is made.

B) The Defendant lends the victim to MV.