A. In the event that the Defendant borrowed money from E, the Defendant heard that he would give a contract for construction and borrowed money, and thus, the Defendant did not report false facts that he/she filed a complaint in the form of fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not lend money from E to the Defendant’s speech that he would contract construction works for H in the Young-si Area Ha, etc., but rather, by the direction or request of the J, the Defendant sent money without any specific conditions upon contact to E. However, the fact that the Defendant reported false facts as stated in the facts charged of this case is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The E loaned money to J, but the communication from the Defendant and the Defendant did not call the Defendant to contract the construction work. After the Defendant wired money to the Defendant, the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s proposal under which the Defendant would want to purchase the apartment house E’s wife M ownership and J as the money remitted from J, and thereafter, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate with respect to the money remitted to the Defendant at the request of J.

② The J also exchanged with E in line with the aforementioned statements of E.

③ At the time, J was the Director-General and had a substantial relationship with E, and J concluded a lease contract around December 11, 2008. The Defendant deposited money over 32 times from February 13, 2009 to December 2009, and the apartment sale price and the lease deposit.