A. Defendant A merely believed the horses of Defendant A at the time of preparation of a performance memorandum against the victim (Evidence Nos. 10, hereinafter “instant performance memorandum”), and there was no intention to commit fraud.

The sentence of the court below (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C did not have any direct contact with the victim, and did not know the content of the instant performance memorandum, so there was no fact that Defendant C conspired with Defendant A and B, thereby deceiving Defendant C.

Defendant

C The F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) engaged in cash transactions with G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) and did not use the security provided by the victim in an economic way. Therefore, there was no intent to obtain fraud against the victim.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to pay KRW 100 million to the victim by June 20, 2012, since the Defendants did not secure the means of self-sufficiency or repayment to the victim at the time of preparing and delivering the instant statement of performance to the victim on June 11, 2012, and there was no intention or ability to pay the victim KRW 100,00 to the victim under the name of the commission.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant C consented to the preparation and delivery of a written statement of performance under the name of Defendant A and B, even though the lower court perceived that the content of the instant statement of performance and the performance of obligations therefrom was impossible, and the victim believed such written statement of performance and offered real estate as security.