The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant believed that, at the time of receiving a remittance of KRW 20 million from the victim, he would be able to obtain a sufficient investment of KRW 30 billion from G, which is a refinite, and that the above KRW 20 million was delivered to G as it is, and not used individually, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the criminal intent by deception by the defendant is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is the constituent element of the crime of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime before and after the crime, the possibility of the act of deception, and the process of performing the act of deception, etc. insofar as the Defendant does not confession. The criminal intent is not definite intent, but dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008; 2016Do12460, Nov. 9, 2017). In addition, where the Defendant denies the criminal intent of defraudation, the subjective element of such crime is not bound to be proven by the indirect facts or circumstantial evidence duly relevant to the crime of crime, and the lower court’s adoption of such indirect facts or circumstantial evidence 2081.5