The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the facts charged in this case on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant attempted to provide security, although the Defendant committed deception on the period of payment and the place of

Judgment

The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in a wide financial transaction relationship. It does not necessarily require that it is related to the important part of a juristic act. It is sufficient if it is about the basis of a judgment for allowing an actor to conduct a disposal of property that the other party wishes by omitting the other party into mistake, and whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes a mistake of another person should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act, such as the transaction situation, the other party's knowledge, experience, occupation, etc.

In addition, in the case of fraud whose purpose is the deceptionation of property, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it itself constitutes a violation of the victim's property, thereby constituting a crime of fraud, and a reasonable price has been paid.

or the victim shall not have any property damage as a whole.

The establishment of fraud does not affect the establishment of fraud.

(1) In light of the following circumstances, the court below’s decision on October 15, 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7459, Oct. 15, 2009). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant was liable for a large amount of debt at the time of the instant loan, and the tourist farm business was not normally carried out, and the Defendant was liable to repay another person’s debt from the victim, so it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant did not have any intent and ability to repay the loan amount

Therefore, it is true.