The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it was true that the victim received a total of KRW 14.2 million from the victim of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there was no fact of deceiving the victim, and there was no intention to deceiving the victim.

B. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the assertion of fraud 1) insofar as the defendant does not make a confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is the constituent element of fraud, is bound to be determined by comprehensively taking account of 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. If, in borrowing money from another person, if the other party did not respond to the true notification of the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to be repaid if the other party did not respond, the crime of fraud is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, if the court below, it is necessary to obtain business funds of the "D Trading company" in which the defendant was working for the victim, and later received money twice from the victim, but actually used most of the borrowed money with the approval of the president, etc., and did not obtain approval from the president as well as well.

The victim stated to the effect that “the victim would have lent it urgently as necessary for business, or would not have been absolutely lent if he was aware of the actual use thereof,” and on the other hand, the defendant was a person who was unable to make personal repayment to the victim at the time of the police investigation.

On the other hand, the defendant has to use the money and to raise the repayment fund.