The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the meaning of the police officer around July 201.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① around April 6, 201: The crime was committed against KRW 30 million out of KRW 70,000,000 that was received from the injured party; however, there was no intention to obtain fraud with respect to the remainder of KRW 40,00,000.

(2) On July 2011, the fraud was committed: The victim was not deceiving, and there was no intention to commit the fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On April 6, 2011, the judgment of the court below and the first instance court on the assertion of mistake as to fraud was duly adopted and investigated by the evidence duly adopted and examined as follows: ① the Defendant had a monetary claim of KRW 50,00,000,00 which is difficult to expect recovery from the injured party to E at the time of borrowing the money from the injured party; ② there was no specific property; ② the Defendant lent the money to I to the I for a subcontract for the construction of the Hosan Storage Station; ② the Defendant agreed to be returned at the time when the construction was conducted and the loan was made; ③ the Defendant appears to have not been able to repay the money from the injured party if the loan was not returned to I; ④ the Defendant would be liable for the Defendant if the I did not return the money to the injured party, and ④ the Defendant would have been paid to the victim KRW 50,000,000,000.

In light of the fact that the defendant has promised, it can be fully recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in paragraph 2 of the decision of the court below and defrauds the victim a total of KRW 70 million.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion of mistake as to the fraud around July 201 (1) of this part of the facts charged (the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “The Defendant, around July 21, 201, at the HH office of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council for the Resolution of the Resolution of the Resolution of the Resolution of the Resolution of the Resolution of the Resolution of the Settlement of the J Buildings (Seoul), would instruct anyone to enter the house, as the Defendant lent to anyone or K KRW 50 million.