A. The time of receiving fraud is when there is a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (not guilty part) and the use of the money or goods that was received after the act of delivery has led to the occurrence of the crime of fraud. Thus, the money or goods obtained through the fraud shall be deemed to be all the money or goods received.

Therefore, even if the defendant actually used part of the tax-free oil supplied by the victim as fuel for the dried machine, it should be deemed that the crime of fraud was committed against the whole 9,00 liters supplied.

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

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant against the Defendant denies its content and without admissibility, and even based on the facts charged itself, the Defendant was thought to use part of the duty-free oil for the use of the cargo fuel or for any other purpose at the time when he applied for the issuance of the duty-free oil purchase card, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was not sufficiently proven as to the fact that the Defendant, other than the duty-free oil used for cargo fuel, was unaware of what he was used for any other purpose, and that the aforementioned 8,520 liter was used for the other purpose, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below and the first instance court in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the circumstances presented by the court below are just and acceptable, and this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal are set forth by the lower court in relation to the facts charged in this case.