The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not pay money to the victim as a result of a loss of KRW 900 million caused due to an unexpected defect in the supplied product, which was determined by the company, and the Defendant did not borrow money from the beginning to the point of view. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud.

In addition, the victim borrowed money from the defendant's company to the defendant's business judgment and expectation that the defendant company can receive a large number of scrapions when the defendant company is operated normally, even though it is well aware that the situation of the company operated by the defendant is very difficult. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant deceivings the victim or borrowed money due to a mistake.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to be widely observed in the transactional relationship with property, and it does not necessarily require to be an important part of a juristic act. It is sufficient if it is based on the facts of the judgment for a perpetrator to make a disposal of property he wishes by omitting the other party into mistake. Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake of other persons should be determined objectively and objectively by taking into account the situation of transaction, other party's knowledge, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7459, Oct. 15, 2009). The criminal intent of defraudation, a subjective constituent element for fraud, is a crime unless the defendant is led to a confession.