A. As to Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct, the victim Q concluded a contract to re-contract the operation of a store with the belief that the statement in the facts charged against Defendant A on the number of pre-contracteds and future demand, etc. is true, and the criminal intent of fraud is recognized to Defendant A.

Even though the victim Q Q has involved in the conclusion of such a contract, there is no obstacle to the establishment of fraud in fraud, even if the victim's negligence was caused by the mistake in the crime of fraud. Thus, the defendant A may sufficiently be found guilty of this part of fraud, which led to his/her act of disposal by deceiving the victim Q Q by deceiving him/her of his/her act of disposal, by speaking as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the joint criminal conduct of the Defendants, the Defendants entered into a business agreement by presenting the conditions of payment of donations from the beginning at the time of water supply, and thereafter, the Defendants failed to make an application for change in the purpose of use of youth training facilities because they failed to raise funds to pay such funds, but received money from the victims T without notifying the fact. Thus, the Defendants’ intent to acquire money is sufficiently recognized as to this part of the charges

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court’s determination as to Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct is based on the following facts acknowledged by the record, even if Q had heard that Q had already completed the reservation of 15,000 persons from Defendant A, and believed it as it is.