The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had expressed an intention to pay food milk to the Fund in return for the supply of edible milk supplied by the victim to the Fund, etc. However, since the Defendant was not paid the food milk price supplied by the Fund for the Settlement of Banks, etc., the Defendant was also unable to pay the food milk price to the victim. Therefore, there was no intention of deception and deception to the Defendant.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, and the process of transaction, unless the Defendant

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2630, Jan. 20, 1998; 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004).

The specific judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined or the following facts or circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged: (i) the defendant was in an economic difficult situation, such as (i) the defendant was in the charge of the debt 1.30 million won at the time when he was supplied with edible milk by the victim company (in the event of being supplied with edible milk by the victim company) and (ii) the defendant set up a collateral on the two lots outside of the Gyeonggi average I (hereinafter “instant land”) as collateral at G’s request, but the above land is not owned by the defendant, and the defendant was not aware of the owner of the land; (iii) the prior collateral was already set upon the establishment of a senior collateral; and (iv) the amount of KRW 37 million is calculated as the officially announced land price of the land.

(1) The Defendant asserts that the value of the instant land should not be assessed as the officially announced value. However, in the case of the instant land, the value of the instant land can be assessed by means of the officially announced value, as the actual transaction value cannot be known.