The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant applied for a loan to the victim Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) only on the document without the intent to purchase the Ecuasp car with the intent to raise credit by deceiving F, etc., and there was no intention of fraud, and there was an intention and ability to repay the debt to the victim.

(M) The sentencing of the lower court (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

(1) In the context of a mistake of facts, a person who receives property is obliged to inform the other party of such circumstances in advance of such circumstances in light of the principle of trust and good faith in a case where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not have been engaged in the transaction in question if he/she would have been notified of a certain circumstance. In the context of a mistake of facts, the deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have the other party to the transaction widely observe in terms of the trust and good faith. Thus, it is sufficient to say that the other party to the transaction would not have been engaged in the transaction in question and would not have been engaged in the transaction in question.

Nevertheless, it constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by implied disregarding the fact that the notice has not been given.

A crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person to receive property or acquiring pecuniary benefits from the defective intent resulting from deception. The essence of fraud is to acquire property or pecuniary benefits from deception, and it does not require that the other party actually suffers pecuniary loss.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004). The court below duly adopted it.