The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) traded money with the victim several times from March 24, 2015 to March 19, 2016; and (b) if the details of the deposit and withdrawal are settled, the amount which was not returned to the victim is merely KRW 14.6 million; and (c) the actual amount which was acquired by deception may not exceed the said amount.

However, even if the defendant paid the total amount of KRW 37,30,000,000 to the defendant, after lending money from the previous victim, he/she shall pay interest exceeding 34.9% per annum under Article 8(1) of the Act on Registration of Loan Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, etc., and Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and shall be returned to the excess part. Thus, the amount obtained by deceit shall be deemed to be KRW 21,943,31,00,000 after deducting the above total amount of money received by the defendant, not the total amount of KRW 63,00,000,000, but the above amount of money received by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant obtained KRW 63 million from the injured party and acquired it by deception is erroneous by mistake.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. If there is a provision of property due to deception in fraud involving deception of property, it itself constitutes a violation of the victim’s property, thereby constituting fraud.

Even if already acquired property or property benefits have been reimbursed after the fact, this does not affect the establishment of a crime, and even if considerable consideration has been paid, it does not affect the establishment of a crime.

Therefore, even in cases where the price is partially paid with the name of a prior interest or commission when acquiring the property, the amount obtained by deceit is not the difference between the value of the property received from the damaged person and the price is not the difference (Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do1899 Decided July 7, 200; 2017Do10601 Decided October 26, 201, etc.).