The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant does not deceiving the victim of mistake of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the judgment of the court below 1) The Defendant became aware of the instant facts charged at the Victim B (Nam, 54 years of age and 10 years of age and 1 years of age at the Dogwon Group.

The fact is that the victim borrowed money from the victim but did not have the intent or ability to pay the money in time, and even if the construction company was acquired, it did not have the ability to pay the profit by receiving the construction, but on December 12, 2007, it can be viewed that the victim would be entitled to take over the construction company from the 1st floor of the Goyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building on December 12, 2007, and the victim "I will be able to pay the construction company with the acquisition of the construction company within the number of days. I would be able to pay the cost without the molding. I would be 20,000 won for the same purpose on August 29, 2008, including by deceiving 20,000 won.

9. On the 23th day of the same month, he/she received money of KRW 3 million on the same basis, and each defrauds it, and on the 26th day of the same month, he/she acquired money from the victim and acquired money of KRW 230,130,000 under the same name as the corporate acquisition fund, KRW 25,000,000 under the same name as of October 7 of the same year, KRW 300,000 under the same name as of January 16, 2009, KRW 10,000,000,000 won under the same name as of January 16, 2009, and acquired money of KRW 294,30,000,000 from the victim.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as indicated in the judgment below. (b) insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is not led to the confession of the Defendant, it shall be determined by taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of performing the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8651, Mar. 24, 2005).