A. Although the victims did not deceiving the victims and did not have the intention to defraud them, the court below found the victims guilty of all the facts charged, and there is an error of mistake in fact.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Legal doctrine 1) The intention of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant is led. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a conclusive intention but to do so, and the criminal intent cannot be acknowledged immediately by means of the non-performance of the obligation in the civil monetary lending relationship. However, if the Defendant borrowed money by pretending that he/she would have been able to repay the money without the due date for repayment as he/she would have no intent to make a clear change or even though he/she would have an ability to repay the money at the time of the loan, he/she may be recognized as the intention of defraudation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do18139, May 13, 201).

We can see (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2970 delivered on September 22, 2006). B. Dominl, the Defendant also asserted as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court was difficult to proceed because the business promoted by the Defendant was insufficient to raise funds of the Defendant, and the amount suffered from some victims.