A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: Although the Defendant deceivings the victim and received a box of 910, as stated in the facts charged, the transport cost of KRW 3,000 per the smuggling box, which the victim bears, and the price paid partially by the Defendant, should be deducted.

Therefore, it is true that the defendant has committed fraud of 11,235,000 won by fraud.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (one hundred and twenty months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a crime of fraud involving deception of property, if there is a provision of property by deception, thereby infringing the victim's property by itself, and thus, the crime of fraud is established. There is no effect on the establishment of fraud even if considerable consideration was paid or no damage was inflicted on the victim's entire property. Thus, in the case of fraud, even if such consideration was partially paid, the amount obtained by deception is not the difference between the value of the property given from the damaged person's damage and the value of the given property (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do1899, Jul. 7, 200; 2010Do307, Jun. 24, 2010).