The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 400,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely subject to a mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and they did not have the intent to acquire the price of goods only after the settlement was revoked.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 400,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in determining the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not confession. The intent of the crime is not a conclusive intention but an intentional intention

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). The lower court duly admitted and examined the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court; ① the Defendant also stated at the police that “On December 20, 2017, the Defendant intended to cancel the payment of the goods if the goods are delivered after the delivery of the goods after the delivery of the goods to the E department store immediately after the Defendant’s direct phone call to the E department store (Evidence No. 29 of the evidence record); ② the Defendant’s cancellation of the payment of the goods by checking the victim’s photograph of the delivery of the goods (Evidence No. 5, 15, 16, 29 of the evidence record) upon the victim’s continuous arrival or evasion of contact with the victim that the payment of the goods would be settled; ④ The Defendant did not pay the payment of the goods at least by the time when the Defendant received the delivery of the goods.

Although the act of cancelling the settlement, as argued by the defendant, was for the purpose of getting the victim's objection to delay of delivery, such act is also aimed at getting the victim's objection.