The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even though the defendant did not have an intention to acquire the victim's money, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Unless the defendant makes a confession, the intention of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud determination as to the assertion of facts, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's re-power, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, and relationship with the victim before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20682, Aug. 1, 2018). In addition, in borrowing money from others, where the other party did not respond if he/she had been notified of the fact about the method of raising funds to repay the borrowed money, if he/she received money by notifying the other party of the fact contrary to the truth as to the purpose of use and the method of raising the funds to repay, then the crime of fraud is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the defendant introduced himself/herself to the victim as a police officer.

On June 15, 2015, the defendant made the victim believe that he is a police officer, and ② on June 15, 2015, the defendant makes a high profit by investing KRW 300 million in the friendship who is engaged in financial business.

It is intended to pay interest at a high rate by making an additional investment on the face of the surplus funds to B.

It stated that the principal shall be preserved by investing in the Gu-gu, and the victim may return the full amount to the due date. The victim remitted to the defendant KRW 110 million on the same day, and the defendant was not a police officer.