The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant did not have the intention to acquire by deception.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case, and there is an error of law of misunderstanding the facts.

B. Even if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a constituent element of fraud in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, shall be determined by 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. In borrowing money from another person, if the other party did not respond to the original notice of the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to be repaid if he did not respond to the original notice, the crime of fraud shall be established if he received money by notifying the other party of the fact contrary

(2) The court below's decision and the court below's decision on September 15, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005). The following circumstances that can be comprehensively recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. In other words, although the defendant was thought to use money for personal purposes, such as lending money from the victim, i.e., the defendant lent KRW 20 million to the victim for the purpose of paying taxes for customs clearance of the imported goods by B, if he borrowed the amount of KRW 20 million to deliver the imported goods to the victim after paying taxes, 20 million after paying taxes, and 3. The defendant did not deliver the goods to the victim for more than one year after receiving KRW 20 million from the victim and did not return the said money.