A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, there is no express provision that the assistant camera, etc. used in the control camera at the time used to commit fraud related to the construction of the O section traffic control camera, among the facts charged in the instant case, at the time, J does not expressly state that the assistant camera, etc. used in the control camera shall have more than a certain chemical size. Therefore, even if the assistant camera, etc. used in the control camera installed by the Defendant A, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant A intentionally installed the control camera with a low quality of fraud.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years; imprisonment for six months; and community service order 120 hours) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A may sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant A attempted to deceive the victim in connection with this part of the facts charged and to defraud the cost of installing a control camera by deceiving the victim. The mere fact that at the time of J-si did not explicitly request the specifications, such as the Kameras and auxiliary Kameras, does not reverse the criminal intent of Defendant A.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

① Defendant A led to the confession of all the facts charged in the first instance court, which led to the reversal of the confession of this part of the facts charged.

The defendant's confession in the court of first instance is not sufficient to conclude that the probative value or credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of appeal differs from the statement in the court of appeal. In determining the credibility of the confession, the contents of the confession's statement per se are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, and what is the motive or reason for the confession.