1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract to supply uniforms to five middle schools, including FF middle schools, belonging to the Office of Education of Chungcheongbuk-do, and obtained loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea in order to raise funds to purchase the school uniforms; (b) concluded a public purchase loan agreement with the Small and Medium Business Administration that each school directly transfers the funds to the virtual account designated by the Industrial Bank of Korea to repay the funds automatically; and (c) even if the above schools paid the funds to the virtual account designated by the Industrial Bank of Korea, the above five middle schools, who did not know the contents of the above agreement, deceiving each of the above five middle schools to directly transfer the funds to the Defendant’s one bank account; and (d) by deceiving the Defendant, the Defendant received KRW 134,09,500 in total from the above five damaged schools to the Defendant’s bank account.

2. As to the assertion that there was no intention of deception, the defendant merely informed the employees of the defendant's company of the deposit account in the Han Bank of Korea to the employees of the damaged school of the defendant, but did not have the intention of deception

The argument is asserted.

Accordingly, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, the judgment of the court below may be used as the ground for appeal in cases where the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the above assertion to the effect that the defendant erred in the recognition of intention is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. As to the assertion that the act of deception does not constitute deception

A. The deception, which is a requirement for fraud under the Criminal Act, is an error in all affirmative or passive acts that have to be observed in the transactional relationship with property, and that have committed any active or passive acts that lose their duty in good faith.