A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles, the defendant's occupation and business status, the contents of the contract, the progress of construction, and the character of the money that the defendant received, it cannot be deemed that the defendant deceivings the victim without the intention or ability to purchase construction materials, and there was no intention to defraud the defendant.

B. The sentence of imprisonment by the lower court (one year and six months) is too unreasonable in light of the Defendant’s serious reflect on unreasonable sentencing, the circumstances leading up to each offense, the recovery of damage to the defrauded, and the criminal record relation.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, deception as a requirement for fraud means active and passive act that causes mistake to another person, which generally lacks good faith and good faith to observe each other in property transactions. It does not necessarily require that it constitutes an important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient that the other party is based on the facts that are determined to conduct an individual disposal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do10519, Jan. 30, 2009). In addition, in a case where it is deemed that, in borrowing money from another person, the other party would have failed to comply with the borrowed money if the other party had notified that it was true about the purpose of use of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to repay, if the defendant received money by notifying the fact contrary to the truth about its purpose or the method of raising funds to repay (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005; 2014Do124124).

As to this, the lower court acknowledged based on evidence, and the following circumstances revealed therefrom, i.e., the Defendant before the commencement of the Corporation.