A. The nature of money that a person who misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles remitted to the defendant is not a loan but an investment money, and the defendant has not received money by deceiving the victim or by defrauding the victim intentionally.

The victim was unaware of the defendant's application for personal rehabilitation.

It can not be evaluated as a deception in fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is a requirement for fraud. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have a good faith and sincerity to each other in the transactional relationship. It is sufficient to say that it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act and that it is the basis for judgment in order to enable the other party to dispose of the property that the other party wishes to dispose of by mistake. Thus, in a case where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not have been notified of certain circumstances, the party to the transaction would have a duty to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith. Nevertheless, the failure to notify the above should be made by deceiving the other party without knowing the fact that it would have been known (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004). 2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it shall be sufficient to obtain the victim from 14.