The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that, upon receiving a loan from the injured party, he/she believed that he/she may change the name of the loan in the name of the Defendant, and delivered it to the injured party and E as it is, and did not anticipate that economic damage would occur to the injured

In addition, there is a little exaggeration about the current status of the driving school by the defendant.

Even if the injured party paid a loan to the defendant, the defendant can immediately transfer the victim's name of the loan.

It is not because the defendant believed that he would have repaid money by successfully operating a private teaching institute.

Therefore, the defendant does not have any intention to commit deception and fraud, and there is no relation between the exaggerated explanation about the driving school and the dispositive act of the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The relevant legal doctrine is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake, and by inducing the act of disposal to receive property or profit from property. The relationship between deception, mistake, and property disposal is required. Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes mistake to another person, and whether there is a relation between such deception and disposal of property should be determined objectively based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act such as transaction, other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9669, Feb. 27, 2014). Moreover, insofar as the defendant does not confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of one fraud, should be determined by taking into account objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction, etc. before and after the crime, and the criminal intent is not a conclusive intention.