The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (a) provided that D operating a corporate bond business that “if he/she lends KRW 50 million to himself/herself, he/she would give KRW 60 million including interest after one week; (b) provided money to D with the intent to assist the victim; (c) provided it again to D with the intent to assist the victim; but (d) provided that D would not be able to pay the money to the victim; and (d) did not borrow money with the intention to not pay the money from the beginning.

B. The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The deception as an action of fraud regarding a mistake of facts does not necessarily require a false representation as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient to view that it constitutes the basis for the judgment to allow an actor to perform the act of disposal of property which he wishes by omitting the other party in error. Thus, in a case where the use belongs and the loan of money would have not been lent to the other party if the true purpose was notified, it shall be deemed that the deception, which is an action of fraud, has been committed (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do707, Sept. 15, 1995, etc.). Meanwhile, insofar as the criminal intent, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is not a confession of the defendant, it shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the defendant's re-abstinence, environment, crime contents, transaction process, etc., before and after the crime was committed, and it is sufficient that the defendant would lawfully lend money to 00Do1074, Feb. 28, 2008, 197).