The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant 1 had the profitability for the new construction of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Building (hereinafter “instant building”) and the Defendant was issued KRW 100 million from the Victim F (hereinafter “the instant money”) on July 28, 201, when the Defendant paid the down payment demanded by H (hereinafter “H”) from the pet Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PF loan”) to Defendant 1.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

B. Although the money in this case is the name of the sale agency deposit, it has the nature as a loan, so the use of the money does not affect the judgment of the criminal intent of the criminal defendant by fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Shebd Sentencing 1 Deliberation type (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) the first deliberation sentence of the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable;

2. Determination:

A. (1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a constituent element of fraud of the relevant legal principles, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant makes a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do424, Apr. 25, 1995). In borrowing money from another person, if the other party did not respond to the true notice as to the purpose of the borrowed money and the method of raising the funds to be repaid if the other party did not respond to the true notice, the crime of fraud shall be established if the money was received by notifying the other party of the fact contrary to the truth as to the method of raising the funds to be repaid (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005).