The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding mistake (as to the 2019 Highest 5419 case as stated in the lower judgment), the Defendant was engaged in transactions normally or failed to return the down payment to the victim due to unexpected circumstances that the Defendant is bound, and did not have the intention of defraudation.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the defendant makes a confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by dolus negligence, the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is expressed as uncertain and it is acceptable in light of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime. There was an incomplete intention

In order to determine the possibility of occurrence of a crime, not only is there a perception of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, but also there is an internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether an offender has accepted the possibility of occurrence of a crime must be confirmed from the standpoint of the offender, taking into account how to evaluate the possibility of occurrence of a crime if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of an act that was externally disclosed and the situation of an act, without depending on the statement of the offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do443, Mar. 27, 2008). B. The Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, considering that the defendant's intentional acquisition is recognized.

(c)

D. Judgment of the court below is different.