A. There was no criminal intent of mistake of facts or fraud against the defendant, and there was no fact that the defendant was the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have a good faith and sincerity to observe each other in property transaction. It is sufficient to say that the deception does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient to establish facts that form the basis for judgment in order to enable the other party to engage in an act of disposal of property that the other party wishes to commit. Therefore, in a case where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not have been notified of certain circumstances, the person who receives the property has a duty to inform the other party of such circumstances in advance. Nevertheless, failure to inform the other party of the fact that it would misleads the other party, thereby constituting fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004). Also, the victim, who is a subjective constituent element of fraud, can only be determined by considering the following circumstances such as the Defendant’s experience before and after the commission of the crime, the content of the crime, etc.