The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had an intention to pay money to the victim at the time of borrowing money. Meritorious and misunderstanding of legal principles [2018 Highest 924 Fraud]

However, the victim was aware of the situation in which the defendant was faced, because the contract price was not paid by the customer and the victim was not paid.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be viewed as deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below recognized fraud without considering it, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have the duty of good faith and sincerity that are to be followed by each other in the transactional relationship. It does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act. It is sufficient if it is based on facts that serve as the basis of judgment for an actor to make a disposal of property that the other party wishes to dispose of by mistake. Therefore, in a case where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would have not been engaged in the transaction if the other party was notified of certain circumstances, a person who receives the transaction is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in light of the principle of good faith. Nevertheless, the failure to notify the other party of the fact that the other party would have been deceiving, thereby constituting fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20682, Aug. 1, 2018). 2) The lower court duly adopted the evidence duly and recognized by the evidence below as follows, and the Defendant, in view of the intent or ability to borrow the victim.