The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The defendant shall obtain money from the applicant for compensation 60 million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant: (a) notified the victims of the fact that it was difficult for the Defendant to borrow money from the victims; and (b) the victims provided a loan to the Defendant until face-to-face production in the second bank factory located in Uzbekistan (Uzbeistan, hereinafter “Ick”), but only determined whether his/her lending claim should be converted into the investment money from June 2009 or until December 2009.

In the instant case, even though the victims did not choose the aforementioned investment conversion, as long as the maturity for payment was not determined from the beginning with respect to the above loan claims, the Defendant merely borrowed funds with the intention to pay the proceeds as generated.

Therefore, the defendant has no intention from the beginning and there is no fact of deceiving the victims with money by deceiving them.

The defendant asserts to the effect that some of the money should be excluded from the details of crime, and the following part of the judgment is examined.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, unless the Defendant makes a confession. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a willful intentional act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). Meanwhile, deception as a requirement of fraud refers to any affirmative or passive act that has neglected the fiduciary duty and good faith to be observed in the transaction of property.

Denating is a false representation of the important part of the juristic act.