A. The Defendant of mistake of facts merely listens to the phrase “G” coffee shop lease deposit amounting to KRW 20 million from J, which was requested by “G” coffee shop owner, and delivered the phrase “50 million premium as it is to the victim E, and does not mislead the victim.

In addition, even if there is a deceptive act, there is no causal relationship because the victim has made an investment decision after evaluating the value of the investment goods, such as confirming the commercial zone around coffee shop or sales situation.

Finally, the defendant did not receive any benefit from I, and there was no reason to deceive the victim for the benefit of I, and there was no intention to commit the crime of fraud.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s act of unfair sentencing is against his own initiative, that the Defendant does not commit the instant crime in a planned manner, and that the gains acquired from the instant case is in full amount of KRW 3 million paid under the name of the revenue and expenditure, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the statement of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court and the first instance court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the statement of the first instance court, except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement of the first instance court witness by taking account of the evidence examination conducted by the first instance court and the evidence examination conducted by the time the argument of the first instance court is concluded by the time of closing the arguments in the appellate court.