A. The Defendants’ respective sentences of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service, and 80 hours of Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor, six months of probation, one year of probation, one year of community service, 80 hours of community service) are too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud against Defendant B): Defendant B told the complainant that he would make a settlement in cash immediately upon the delivery of the original unit to the complainant. At the time, the complainant did not receive any outstanding amount from Defendant B, but the complainant supplied the original unit equivalent to KRW 20,643 that was believed in reliance on Defendant B’s horse (hereinafter “instant primary supply”).

A) However, in light of the fact that Defendant B was liable for an amount equivalent to approximately KRW 200 million due to business depression, and that the electronic bill delivered from Defendant B was in default, Defendant B was aware of the fact that at least dolusium would not normally pay the price even if the original unit was supplied by the complainant. In addition, Defendant B, despite being aware of the fact that the current number of units issued to the complainant would not be settled normally, issued a persuasion to receive the original unit, and the complainant was additionally supplied KRW 77,570 (hereinafter “instant secondary supply”). The complainant supplied the original unit to Defendant B (hereinafter “instant secondary supply”).

2) The lower court found Defendant B not guilty of the fraud of Defendant B by misunderstanding the fact at the time of the instant first and second supply, even though the lower court acknowledged Defendant B’s criminal intent to commit deception and defraudation. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s punishment on Defendant B is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant B, Defendant B’s intent or ability to pay the original amount solely by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.