A. The Defendant of mistake of facts received KRW 100 million from the victim H as the advance payment or deposit money for the Corporation, and as long as the government-funded construction has continued to do so, there was no intention or ability to perform it, and thus, there was no intention to obtain fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) The intent of defraudation, which is the constituent element of a crime of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do424, Apr. 25, 1995). In borrowing money from another person, where the other party did not respond to the true notice of the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to be repaid if the other party did not respond to the true notice, the crime of fraud is established. In this case, the conclusion is not different solely on the ground that the Defendant provided a security for the borrowed money. 2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated in the judgment of the court below and the trial court, and the court below, it appears that the Defendant received KRW 100,000 (hereinafter “instant money”) from the victim despite having no intent or ability to repay, and that the Defendant did not use the existing funds.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.