A. The Defendant: (a) believed the truth that E would receive orders from LH Corporation for the removal of housing site development in the area (hereinafter “the removal of this case”) and introduced the victims to E; and (b) concluded a contract for the removal of this case with the victim.

Therefore, although the defendant did not have the intention to commit fraud, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles on fraud, which affected the conclusion

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in determining the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, shall 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, the relationship with the victim, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8418 Decided April 27, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12003 Decided May 16, 2014, etc.). The lower court asserted that: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (b) the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim for the removal of the instant removal works by delivering the contents of the subcontract with the owner of the instant removal works; (c) the Defendant entered into an agreement with the victim to approve the said contract as the original beneficiary; and (b) there was no actual order for the removal; and (c) such fact was easily known to the person in charge of LH works upon inquiring of the person in charge of the instant removal (the victim confirmed that the order was not given by inquiring of the person in charge of LH works around the payment date of the remainder; and (c) the Defendant believed only e-mail and paid to E in large amount exceeding KRW 340 million.