A. Although there is a fact that the defendant in mistake of facts issues each bill and received discount money on the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, there was no deception for the victim, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The intention of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, content of the crime, and process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a conclusive intention but to have dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1697, Jun. 23, 2009). In addition, even though there is no fear that a bill would not be settled at the due date or could have been paid at the due date, if the bill was discounted without notifying the addressee of such fact, the crime of fraud is also established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do1461, Mar. 12, 198; 93Do1408, Jul. 27, 1993).

① On January 29, 2013, the Defendant requested the victim to discount of a promissory note five times in total by April 8, 2013, including requesting the victim to discount of a promissory note (K) with a face value of KRW 50 million at face value and on May 20, 2013 as follows: “The interest payment is at least KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.”

(Evidence Records No. 137)