A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

A. Although the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, received a security deposit for the supply of food materials from E or received a delivery of fruit from L, there was no intention to commit fraud without deceiving E and L as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court which found the defendant guilty of each fraud as stated in the facts charged is erroneous by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of imprisonment with labor (one year and six months) on the Defendant’s judgment of the first instance court on the unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In the first instance court, the Defendant asserted that the grounds for appeal are the same as those of the grounds for appeal, and the first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion while explaining the grounds for appeal at the bottom of “a summary of evidence” and convicted the Defendant of all facts charged.

In comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance and this court, a thorough examination is conducted in comparison with the above judgment of the court of first instance. Examining the following circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant deceptioned the victim E and the victim L, as stated in the facts charged, and acquired money and work by deception. Therefore, the above judgment of the court of first instance is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was a mistake of mistake of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

The victims make very specific and consistent statements concerning the statement and behavior of the defendant, the opportunity to trust the defendant, etc., and there are sufficient grounds to support the above statements.

In short, the victim E has consistently asserted or stated in the complaint that “the defendant was examined at the time when the defendant met,” and this is being confirmed through the witness D’s police statement.

In addition, the victim.