A. The money under paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime of mistake in the judgment of the court below is the money received by the defendant for a regular air time to the victim C and for the payment of the money. In relation to Paragraph (2) of the above facts, at the time of the above facts constituting the crime, the defendant merely borrowed money from the victim as a total of KRW 900,000,000,000,000,000 from the defendant's bank obligations at the time of the defendant, and the defendant received the lease deposit under the name of the defendant, and the defendant received the whole house construction (hereinafter "the construction of this case") from the victim and received the construction cost from the victim, but the defendant was to receive the construction cost from the victim, but the victim did not receive more than KRW 134,00,00,000 from N, while the construction cost of this case exceeds KRW 200,000,000,000,000 from the victim, most of the defendant borrowed money from the victim, it cannot be recognized that deception or fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the conviction of an unreasonable sentencing is recognized, the lower court’s punishment (fine of 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, has to be determined by comprehensively taking account of 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 confession, the criminal intent is sufficient for dolusence, rather than a conclusive intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). In addition, as a subjective constituent element of the constituent element of the crime, the possibility of willful negligence is uncertain.