A. Error of mistake demanded KRW 100 million in return for receiving additional quantities from the victim, and only the Defendant received money from the victim and delivered money to F.

Although the defendant made efforts to receive additional quantities, he was unable to receive C due to C's default.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not intend to acquire the money.

B. The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant belonged to 70 million won as indicated in the judgment of the first instance and acquired the victim by deceit, and the intent of the crime of defraudation.

(1) The Defendant received money from the victim as if he did not have any specific plan or ability to get the victim to be provided with an additional scrap metal from C, thereby having the victim meet losses after being supplied with an additional scrap metal.

② On August 19, 2008, the Defendant prepared and delivered a letter of intent to return money in the name of the Defendant when the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the victim and did not meet any loss.

③ It was true that the Defendant paid KRW 70 million to F, which was the Defendant’s personal debt owed to F. However, it was for the Defendant to repay the personal debt owed to F.

④ The Defendant acknowledged the entire facts charged in the first instance trial.

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

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the amount of damage exceeds KRW 70 million and neither was recovered nor agreed.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances, details and results of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings, the first instance sentence is too unreasonable.