The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant received money as stated in the facts charged from the victim E as the successful bid price for receiving the G land in Gyeonggi-do, but the F, who was actually in charge of the said auction, believed that he would be responsible for the said short money and invested in auction with the money of the victim. The Defendant was merely a failure that the Defendant did not purchase the said land and did not return the said money to the victim because F failed to comply with the said promise.

Therefore, although the defendant is not recognized as a criminal intent of deception or deception, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the conviction of an unreasonable sentencing is recognized, the lower court’s imprisonment (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, is to be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant is led to the crime. Since the crime of fraud is established by dolusisisis as well. The subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed to be uncertain and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is accepted, and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is recognized, as well as there is an awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, and further, the intention of the deliberation to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime is to be observed. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime is not dependent on the statement of the offender, but on the basis of the specific circumstances such as the form of the act and the situation of the act