The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged without deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The determination of fraud as to the assertion of mistake is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by inducing a dispositive act, and thereby obtaining property or pecuniary benefits. Therefore, there should be causation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act. On the other hand, whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake to another person, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and property disposal act should be determined generally and objectively, taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act such as the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc.

In addition, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, 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 performing transaction before and after the crime, so long as the defendant does not confession, the crime of fraud is established even by dolus negligence. As a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, dolus negligence refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed as uncertain and it is accepted in the statement, and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is recognized in order to have willful negligence, as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, and further, there is an internal intent to allow the risk of the crime. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime is not dependent on the statement of the offender, but is the form of the