In fact, the Defendant merely received money from the victims with the intention and incidental expenses while attempting for the victims, such as the victim D and H’s deception, and did not deceiving the victims.

There is no fact that the Defendant borrowed 59,014,00 won from the injured party without any intention or ability to repay, such as a loan to the injured party D.

As a result of the victim H’s private strike, mining was delayed due to the Lao local circumstances, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, since the Defendant had the intent and ability to make profits by mining the mine (hereinafter “the mine of this case”) from the Lao as a result of the Rasa’s private wave, and thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.

The punishment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts as to the act of fraud, such as the victim D and H’s deception, constitutes fraud if the Defendant exceeded the permissible limits as traditional custom or religious activity, in the event that he/she notified the victim of a fright or promises to give compensation under the pretext of frighting, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Do12460, Nov. 9, 2017; 2007Do10917, Feb. 14, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the following circumstances can be acknowledged.

The defendant, for about 6 months of around 2004, had been engaged in a fluoral work upon the request of the presiding judge, who is the defendant's ship's captain, to go to the office of AS, which is the defendant's ship, and did not have been provided with education or training to become a civilian (Evidence Record 750, 1085 page). Nevertheless, the defendant met the victims of around February 2008, and "Igre the fluor's body" is the body.