A. The sentence that the court below sentenced the Defendants to the Defendants (the imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, the imprisonment of 6 months, the imprisonment of 2 years, and the community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Although the crime of fraud was established against the Defendant A, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, in so determining, by misapprehending the legal doctrine or mistake, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges, even though it did not err in matters of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

The sentence imposed by the court below to Defendant A is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, fraud is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake, causing the act of disposal, and thereby causing property or pecuniary gain. Therefore, there is a causal relationship between deception, mistake, and property disposal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 2000). Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes another person to be mistaken for a mistake, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and property disposal act should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the situation of transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of such act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1872, Mar. 8, 198). In addition, the criminal intent of deception as to such deception should be determined by taking into account the aforementioned circumstances as the situation at the time of the act before and after the Defendant’s confession, the Defendant’s history, the content of the crime, the process of transaction, and the victim’s relationship.