A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the charges of this case on the ground that the defendant had the intent to commit a crime by deceit although he/she had the intent or ability to visit the victims to the U.S. to travel or to attend language training, is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. When considering the various circumstances on the defendant's point of unfair sentencing, the sentence of the court below (one hundred and sixty months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of social service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the Gwangju District Court 201 Gooman34 case, has to be determined by comprehensively taking account of 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, insofar as the Defendant does not confession; (b) the criminal intent is not definite intention, but dolusive intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following circumstances recognized by the Defendant, who is the president of the English Institute of English Research and Development, where the victim was accompanied by Gman on April 2010, and the Defendant’s specific preparation to make the U.S. travel from May 31, 2010 to May 31, 2016.