A. There is no mistake of fact in collusion between the Defendants and the victims.

Defendant

B There is no intention to commit fraud because it borrowed money with the belief of Defendant A that it is possible to repay the borrowed money by the due date because it becomes final and conclusive to receive the invested money in lock.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment and the suspension of execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendants asserted the same as in the trial of the lower court, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case.

The court was aware of the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: (a) the victim visited the factory at least twice in advance to hear the explanation of the business from the defendant and trusted the loan to the defendant A at the request of the defendant B; (b) the defendant B made a false statement from the defendant's factory relocation cost; (c) the defendant B knew that the defendant A was unable to pay the loan to the defendant for a long time; and (d) the defendant B knew that he was unable to pay the loan to the defendant; and (c) there was no other means to attract investment from the defendant A from July 2016, but did not confirm any progress until the time of the case; (d) even around November 201, 2015, the defendant acquired money from the person who used the business carried on by the defendant A and was punished for such crime; and (e) the defendant also did not have sufficient means to borrow money and agreed to prepare and deliver a certificate of loan if it did not have any specific financing plan; and (e) the crime of conspiracy and delivery of the defendant.