A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) As to the fraud against the victim J, each of the money listed in the No. 7 through No. 11 of the crime inundation list is to be invested by the victim and to divide it into profit if there is profit. In the case of each of the money listed in the No. 1 through No. 6, 12, and 16 of the crime inundation list, the victim borrowed money with the understanding that the victim may not be paid in time due to the economic difficulties of the defendant at the time. Thus, there was no deception of the victim and there was no intent to commit fraud.

2) As to the fraud against the victim H, the Defendant did not have any intent to acquire the price by means of credit transaction, although he traded by means of credit transaction.

3) With respect to the fraud against the victim I, the Defendant believed that the Defendant had the value of security sufficient to repay the borrowed money to the Godong 4,000 Ga, which was offered as security (hereinafter “the instant Go Dong”), and had the authority to dispose of the said money by offering it as security, so there was no deception of the victim and there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case where sentencing is unfair, the sentence of two-year imprisonment, which the court below decided against the defendant, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant can be recognized that the Defendant acquired the victims’ pecuniary benefits equivalent to the unpaid amount of borrowed money and the price of goods, as stated in the instant facts charged, and the intent of defraudation is recognized.

Ultimately, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

1) As to the fraud against the victim J, the Defendant alleged that each of the money from Nos. 7 through 11 of the crime inundations was invested by the victim in the Defendant’s Russia import business, but the Defendant and the victim are the victims.