A. The Defendant was aware of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine without knowing B, and only C was aware of the fact that C was in need of the name of the person who was able to borrow an officetel, and only lent the name.

Therefore, there is no difference between the Defendant and B, C, and D. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to refund the lease deposit to the Defendant, etc. solely on the ground that the Defendant used the lease deposit for the instant officetel as the sales price of the instant officetel, which was received from the victim with B, etc., even though the Defendant used as the sales price of the instant officetel.

Therefore, the court below which found the defendant guilty in fraud has erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed in the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (i) G, the owner of the instant officetel, requested the O office to sell the instant officetel; (ii) L, the broker assistant of the above office, requested L, in turn, to the head of the consulting office L; and (iii) L, the broker assistant of the office, requested L, in turn, to search for the purchaser; and (ii) at the time B, obtained the instant officetel loan and purchased the instant officetel and was expected to have remaining 12 million won if she was placed at the same office, and divided it with D (one name P) and its type C, which had been employed at the same office; and (iii) decided to purchase the instant officetel under the name of the Defendant after being introduced by C and C, and the Defendant provided all documents necessary for accepting the instant officetel and purchasing it.