A. Defendant 1) In determining the facts, Defendant 1 did not commit deception against the victim D, G, B, E, F, and I, and did not have the intent to commit fraud. Therefore, the lower court convicted the said victims of the criminal facts by mistake of facts. The lower court did not err in matters of mistake of facts. (A) At the time of entering into a contract with the victim D on the restaurant, there was no deception that the Defendant had the right to operate the restaurant finally acquired and possessed by the Defendant at the time of concluding the contract on the restaurant.

After the conclusion of the above contract, the Defendant introduced to the victim the construction sites of Chungcheong Jinjin, Suwon, Zinsung, and Red, but the victim refused to operate the restaurant at the construction site.

B) At the time of the fraud against the victim G, the victim G was aware of the horses of DT and AX, and the defendant did not commit deception to the victim, and the defendant did not have the right to operate the restaurant because it was highly likely that the defendant would obtain the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site by recommendation at the time. (c) The fraud against the victim B did not deceiving the victim B that the defendant has the right to operate the restaurant finally, and there was no intention on the part of BI, which was highly likely to be selected as the operator of the construction at the time, to the effect that the defendant would hold the right to operate the restaurant. (d) The fraud against the victim E did not have any intention on the part of the victim because the defendant received the right to operate the restaurant through BM, which was written in writing by AC, but the acquisition price was not made by AC, but the defendant did not obtain the right to operate the restaurant by means of a provisional seizure.