The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In fact, the instant dispute arises from the difference between the defendant and the victim in the course of performing the contract, and apart from the fact that the defendant is liable for the non-performance of civil liability as a result of the case, there is no fact that the defendant defrauds the criminal intent or deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud on the premise that the Defendant has a criminal intent by deception, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, has to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. B. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the crime of fraud is established even by willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do4264, Apr. 28, 2016).

1) The background of the instant dispute is F. F. The red ginseng manufacturing business.