A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant did not have a debt of KRW 20 million at the time when he borrowed KRW 5 million from the victim. Although the Defendant was planning to pay with labor cost of KRW 8 million from the operator of the commercial building in the Incheon Songdo, but the executor did not receive the above money due to the wind and did not intentionally borrow money from the victim.

(2) The Defendant, who acquired the money through deception related to the down payment of Chuncheon F apartment, did not receive the purchase price of KRW 98 million which is KRW 10 million and the down payment which is KRW 10 million, but did not receive KRW 68 million from the victim, and requested the victim to prepare an additional amount of KRW 9.8 million, which is KRW 10 million, the down payment of KRW 10 million, which is KRW 10,000,000,000, which is KRW 10,0000,000,0000,0000,000,000 won, and received additional KRW 9.8,000,000,000,000,000,000 won. Accordingly, the victim’s consent should be deemed to have been obtained since

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts (1) The criminal intent of defraudation of 5 million won borrowed money, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, environment, content of the crime, process of performing transactions, etc., unless the Defendant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do424, Apr. 25, 1995). In light of the above legal principle, the health team, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and the following circumstances recognized by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant borrowed KRW 2 million from the victim on the condition that the Defendant was engaged in only one week around December 2, 2009, but failed to pay the amount.