Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

The decision is based on the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant had received delivery of KRW 10 million by deceiving the victim.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

A. Even if the benefit holder cannot exercise the right to claim return against the beneficiary because it constitutes an illegal cause under Article 746 of the Civil Act, if the beneficiary provided property equivalent to an illegal cause to a female female through deception, the crime of fraud is established. Thus, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party for the purpose of using it for gambling (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6795, Nov. 23, 2006). Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the Defendant received delivery of KRW 10 million from the injured party by deception, and then whether the Defendant used the above money for gambling is irrelevant to the establishment of a crime.

B. Around 21:00 on December 15, 2014, the victim received a request from the Defendant to lend KRW 10 million from the Defendant for the purpose of the company fund, and the victim transferred KRW 9 million to one license bank, one bank corporation, one of which the Defendant informed, and the remainder one million won to the Defendant in cash.

was stated.

The loan certificate (Evidence No. 10 of the evidence record) submitted by the injured party together with the written complaint and the statement of transaction (Evidence No. 13 of the evidence record) are also made by the injured party.