The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it was not possible to recognize the defendant's intent to commit the act of deception or fraud, since there was a claim that can receive 10 million

2. The existence of the crime of fraud, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction, and relationship with the victim, unless the Defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1070, Feb. 14, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (a) the Defendant: (i) the victim engaged in the production and sale business, such as the heading, shower, etc., known to him/her through the introduction of a person around March 20, 2015; (b) the treatment construction site; (c) the colon site; (d) the construction site; and (d) the construction site in the e.g., the construction site; (d) the Defendant received money from the person who did not have any ability to do so in an investigative agency.

The court below and the party court held that the real estate enforcement business was conducted at the time.

G When the construction work is undertaken in the above construction site.