We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was capable of paying the loan at the time of the instant loan, and not only did C have the intent to accept the repayment on behalf of C in a case where C is unable to repay the loan, so it does not mean that C acquired the money from the damaged person

B. The sentence of first deliberation (4 months of imprisonment with prison labor, 1 year of suspended execution) on the sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, 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 sufficient not to have a conclusive intention but to have dolusent intent, and in the civil monetary lending and lending relationship, the criminal intent of acquiring the borrowed money can not be acknowledged immediately with the fact of default. However, in the event the Defendant borrowed money by pretending that it would have been repaid even though the Defendant did not have an intention to make a full representation or have no ability to repay within the due date for repayment as agreed upon by the loan, the criminal intent of defraudation can be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do18139, May 13, 201). Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court:

Since it is seen that it is possible to fully recognize the criminal intent of defraudation.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

① The Defendant: (a) as C requires expenses in relation to the Paris Corporation in Jeju-do, the Defendant: (b) the Victim needs to pay KRW 30,00 to the Jeju-do construction expenses; and (c) the Victim will be paid KRW 60,000 with the principal and interest KRW 100 per week after the loan.

“The victim”, and the victim is the defendant.