The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant was offered by the victim that he would lend the instant loan from the victim of the fact, and did not have any deceptive act against the victim.

In addition, the Defendant had the intent or ability to repay the above loan to the victim because it was possible to obtain the instant building and its site as a collateral.

Nevertheless, in spite of the defendant's intention or ability to repay money, the defendant deceivings the victim.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty against the defendant is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The determination of fraud as to the assertion of mistake of facts is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by inducing a dispositive act, and by obtaining property or pecuniary benefits. Such determination must be based on the relation between deception, mistake, and property disposal.

Meanwhile, whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes mistake to another person, and whether such deception and property disposal are related to a mistake ought to be determined on a general and objective basis, taking into account the transactional situation, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances as at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1872, Mar. 8, 198; 201Do829, Oct. 13, 201; 2013Do969, Feb. 27, 2014). Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court, even if the Defendant deceivings the victim and received the loan of this case from the said victim, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was given the loan of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that held the defendant guilty is just, and there is no error of mistake in fact.

(1)