A. The Defendant had the intent and ability to obtain a loan from the victim at the time of receiving money from the victim C, and was expected to receive a loan by receiving a letter of loan guarantee from the Co., Ltd., V through U, and entering into a financial consulting contract. However, it is merely that the loan was not made by the victim during the consultation.

Therefore, the defendant deceivings the victim.

It shall not be deemed that there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud or to commit a crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant received a total of KRW 50 million from funds to obtain a loan by allowing the victim to obtain land purchase price and construction cost, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to obtain a loan from the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

① At the time, the victim entered into a sales contract with the former owner of the said land with respect to the instant land, Geung-gu W and paid only the down payment and intermediate payment. The said clan was in the process of filing a lawsuit against the landowner, Eel Construction Co., Ltd. to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership of the said land.

After examining the progress of the lawsuit, the victim paid the balance of the purchase price of the above land to the same clan, and attempted to build a wholesale market for agricultural and livestock products on the above land, so the procedure for authorization and permission was followed and the construction cost should have been prepared.

After fully recognizing this situation, the Defendant purchased land to the victim.