The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, the misapprehension of the legal principle) is not the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, by deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving the victim a total of KRW 55,692,00.

2. Determination

A. Fraud as a requirement for determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to be followed by each other in the transactional relationship with property, and thus are not necessarily required to be related to the important part of a juristic act. It is sufficient to establish the basis of the judgment for allowing an actor to conduct an act of disposal of property that he/she wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.

In addition, whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes mistake of another person should be determined generally and objectively in consideration of the situation of the transaction, the other party's knowledge, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7459 Decided October 15, 2009, etc.). In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below among the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendant, the defendant's deception by deceiving the victim as shown in the facts charged can be acknowledged.

(B) In addition, the defendant led to confession of all the facts charged in this case in the court of original instance, and the confession was made in the presence of a judge who has secured objectivity and fairness in accordance with the law, and there is no special reason to suspect the credibility thereof).

Although there are unfavorable circumstances such as the fact that the amount of fraud caused by the crime of this case is not significant and that the damage is not completely recovered, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim and seems to seriously endeavor to repay the damage, the fact that the damage has been restored to a certain part, and the intention of the fraud is the criminal intent.