A. In a case where the Defendant agreed to operate a manufacturing business of the Ansan-Tech with the complainant, and did not maintain the same business due to mechanical defects, even though the Defendant ordered and purchased the instant money from its partner fees with the order of KRW 73,80,000,000,000, the Defendant did not deceiving the complainant as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below also argued the same as the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts. In light of the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below acknowledged by the records, the court below should be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial power before and after the crime, environment, circumstances, and details of the crime, and the process of transaction execution, unless the defendant does not make a confession, and thus, the defendant borrowed the above money by pretending that the remittance amount of KRW 73,80,000 from the victim was not a partner, but the defendant borrowed the money from the victim with no ability or intent to repay the money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2682, Aug. 1, 2018). However, in a civil monetary lending relationship, if the defendant borrowed the money by pretending that the defendant did not have an intent to repay the money within the due date, the court below can legally recognize the intention of deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do26826, etc.).