The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant did not deceiving the victims, and the defendant's act of non-performance did not constitute a deception.

Even if there was deception, there was no relation with the victim's act of disposal, and the defendant had no intention to commit fraud.

It is difficult to regard the text message sent by the defendant as a threat of harm and injury to victims, and even if there was a threat of harm and injury, it is limited to the extent that it can be accepted in light of social norms.

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to each of the frauds constitutes fraud if he/she exceeded the permissible limits as traditional custom or religious activity in cases where he/she received compensation under the pretext of deception, etc. in which he/she notified the victim of his/her non-performance or promising to give him/her the result of any scarfication (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2016Do12460, Nov. 9, 2017; 2007Do10917, Feb. 14, 2008). In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant deceptioned the victims with intent to commit each of the frauds of this case beyond the bounds of the non-speed act as traditional religious activity.

The defendant's act of deception and the victim's act of disposal can be sufficiently recognized, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The victims made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of original trial to the purport that this part of the facts charged is consistent with the facts charged (Evidence Records 106 to 114, 463 through 487, 505, 891 through 917, 928 through 965, 72 through 144, 179 through 201). The above statements are specific to the extent that they cannot be seen without direct experience.