A. The Defendant is not guilty of deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact 1) The Defendant’s confessions in the investigative agency and the court of first instance are different from the Defendant’s legal statement in the appellate court’s appellate court’s determination of the probative value or credibility of the confession

In determining the credibility of a confession, the credibility of a confession shall be determined in consideration of whether the contents of the confession are objectively reasonable, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstance leading to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among other evidence than the confessions (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). 2) In examining the record, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the confession in the motive or circumstance of the confession in the prosecutor's office or the court of the original instance, and the contents of the confession do not conflict or conflict with the objective circumstances recognized by other evidence.

B. Since the confessions made by the Defendants are sufficient evidence to support F such as police statements, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendants deceptioned the victim as stated in the instant facts charged (i) there is no circumstance to deem that the confessions made by the prosecution of the Defendant or by the court of the original instance are false statements by force or deception, and (ii) the Defendant is the borrowed money that the Defendant remitted to the Defendant by the prosecution and the prosecutor’s office.

Defendant is entitled to full payment of all money.

Because of the fact that it was fest.

A statement to the effect that “the victim’s statement is consistent with both the victim’s statement,” and that “if the victim became able to make a change, the victim would not be the victim’s money.”