A. There was no intention to obtain money from the victim at the time when the defendant received 10 million won as a performance guarantee for construction work.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is bound to be made by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of performing transactions, unless the Defendant is led to the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). 2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the facts charged in the instant case that “the Defendant had no capacity or intent to give a subcontract for new construction works of the convalescent hospital, and was paid KRW 10,000,00 to the victim under the pretext of performance guarantee by deceiving the victim, despite the absence of intention or ability to return performance guarantee money, the Defendant did not have any reason to believe that the Defendant was a new construction works in the convalescent hospital, and even if having received a new construction contract between the owner and the owner, it did not immediately change the content of the construction works.”

C. On June 2009, a contract for construction work has not been entered into between the defendant and the owner.