The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who was recommended by F to participate in the Saemangeum Reclamation Corporation, invested a considerable amount of money on the condition of supplying oil, transporting soil and stones, and booming, and the Saemangeum Reclamation Corporation was aware that it would be immediately implemented, and it was impossible to grant the victim D the right to operate the booming restaurant due to the delayed delay, and there was no fact that the Defendant received money from the victim with the intent to obtain money.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession, and the crime of fraud is also established even by dolus negligence. The subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed to be uncertain and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is accepted as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime in order to have dolusent intent. Furthermore, the determination of whether the perpetrator permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime should depend on the statement of the offender, and should be confirmed from the perspective of the offender, considering how the possibility of occurrence of the crime is assessed (see Supreme Court Decision 207Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009).