A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

A. Defendant 1) mistake of facts: (a) In relation to the fraud against the victim C, the Defendant was sufficiently capable of repaying the above money when borrowing the money from the victim C; and (b) in relation to the embezzlement, the Defendant deposited the money in the name of the deposit for hospitalization from the KN, and borrowed the above money again from the N, the Defendant did not embezzled the money in the name of the deposit for hospitalization; (b) however, the lower court convicted the Defendant of all of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, in light of all the sentencing factors of the instant case of unfair sentencing. (b) In so doing, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all of the sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the lower court’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of fraud against 1 victim C, 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, unless the defendant makes a confession. Since the crime of fraud is established even by willful negligence. The subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed to be uncertain and it is acceptable in light of the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime. In order to have had willful negligence, not only the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime but also the intention to deliberate to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime is not dependent on the statement of the offender, but also on the basis of specific circumstances such as the form of the act committed outside and the situation of the act.