A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. The Defendant had no intention to acquire the money by deception due to the ability to pay the money at the time of the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

On June 13, 2019, the prosecutor filed an application for amendment to a bill of amendment with the purport that "the defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of execution on April of imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime of forging private documents in the Jinwon District Court's Jinju branch on June 13, 2019 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 30, 2019" was added to the first part of the facts charged in this case at the appellate trial. Since the subject of adjudication was changed by the appellate court

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding facts is still subject to the appellate court's judgment, separate from the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

3. The intent of defraudation, which is a constituent element of fraud in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, 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, and the process of transaction, unless the Defendant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8781, Jan. 18, 2008). Meanwhile, in the case of money lending and borrowing contracts or construction contracts, which have been continuously formed a continuous transaction relationship, it shall not be readily concluded that the said money borrower or construction business operator was guilty of the crime of acquiring money only by deception on the ground that the said money borrower or construction business operator was unable to perform his/her obligation on the grounds of temporary cash-raising, etc. However, even though the accumulated excessive debts are in extremely doubtful circumstances, it shall not be readily concluded that there was a criminal intent to acquire money.