The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant pays 300,000,000 won to the applicant for compensation by fraud.

3.2

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In accordance with a plan for fostering non-real-name funds established on July 2, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 300,000,000 from D on July 22, 2011, in the name of the disposal costs for cash withdrawal in the non-real-name account, and on March 2012, the Defendant merely borrowed KRW 300,00,000 in the name of the disposal costs for cash withdrawal in the non-real-name account, but did not return the money to D on or around March 2012, and did not have a criminal intent to acquire the money by deception.

In light of the fact that the defendant of an unreasonable sentencing violates his own mistake, the punishment imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is the constituent element of the crime of fraud in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, 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 transactions 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, if the other party has failed to comply with the true notice of the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to be repaid if the other party has failed to comply with the true notice of the purpose of the borrowed money, the crime

(2) In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's judgment is justified and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except for a case where it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except for a case where the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the statement of each prosecutor's office against D, D, and F, and where it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and the assent of all participating Justices.