A. misunderstanding of facts (1) the court below's testimony D and E cannot be trusted, and (2) the victim failed to conduct advertising business using the same advertising medium even though the victim explained the repair or replacement of the old broadcast advertising media several times, and thus, the proceeds which have been promised could not be paid to the victim. However, the court below's conviction based on the victim's statement is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court does not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance differs from the appellate court's judgment. However, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance on the ground of the first instance court's results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of the closing of arguments at the appellate court's closing of arguments (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). In this case, the lower court's judgment on the credibility of each witness of the first instance court's D and E cannot be deemed to have been clearly erroneous or unreasonable.

The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, is the crime.