The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant borrowed most of the borrowed money from the victim with gambling funds, and the Defendant repaid 4 million won out of the borrowed money.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of 70,000 won by deceiving the victim as a sum of 7,80,000 won is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Even if the benefiter cannot exercise the right to claim return against the beneficiary because it constitutes an illegal cause under Article 746 of the Civil Act, if the beneficiary provided property equivalent to an illegal cause through deception (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do707, Sept. 15, 1995). Thus, even if the defendant borrowed money to the victim for the purpose of using it for gambling funds, it does not affect the establishment of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6795, Nov. 23, 2006, etc.). Meanwhile, if there is a delivery of money due to deception in fraud, the crime of fraud is established on its own because it infringes on the victim's property, and there is no considerable price or damage to the victim's entire property, even if such money has not been partially paid for fraud, it shall not be deemed that the defendant lawfully obtained the difference from the victim who received the money from the victim and received the money from the victim, but shall not be deemed to have been delivered for the crime of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7875, Jul. 27, 20006).