A. The Defendant had sufficient means to pay the instant transport cost at the time of the mistake of the fact, and thus, there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

However, the court below erred in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged due to mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by clearly explaining the lower court’s determination at the lower court’s bottom of “a summary of evidence” column. In light of the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The Defendant had no record of having previously been punished as a same crime or of criminal punishment heavier than a fine, and the fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is a relatively small amount is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is that the defendant will pay the expenses to the victim by transporting scambling water twice.

It is a false-end case in which the crime is not less than 90,000 won, and the fact that the crime does not reach an agreement with the victim up to the trial, and does not take any measures for the recovery of the victim's damage, the fact that the victim's damage is consistent with an ambiguous vindication and does not reflect the mistake is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of the instant crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, taking account of various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sex, and environment.