A. As to Defendant 1’s mistake of facts, the Defendant did not deception the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, and did not commit fraud with respect to the part of the amount used by the Defendant to establish and operate a store operated in the same business with the actual victim out of the investment money received from the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. As to the mistake of facts or evasion of compulsory execution, in view of the background leading up to the conversion of the Defendant and the victim into the previous loan or the fact that a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract was made between the Defendant and the victim in relation to the above loan, the victim would have been sufficiently anticipated to commence compulsory execution when the future maturity comes, and thus, there was an objective condition that the Defendant could have been subject to compulsory execution at the time of changing the lessee’s name. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts. 2) The sentence imposed by

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the defendant made a false statement of facts that serve as the basis of determining whether the victim has invested as stated in the facts charged at the time when the defendant received the investment money from the victim, and that the victim would not have invested money in the defendant if the defendant did not have such deception. Thus, it is recognized that the defendant received the investment money by deceiving the victim.