All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B did not say that the victim or G was the head of a national bank branch, and the victim transferred money through G after confirming that Defendant B was not the head of a national bank branch through G, the causal link between deception and the disposal act was severed.

In addition, there was no intention to commit fraud against the Defendants.

B. Each sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a judgment of fraud as to the assertion of mistake of mistake, fraud is established even in cases where there is a causal link between deception and another party’s mistake and delivery of property or grant of pecuniary benefits. However, even in cases where there is negligence on the part of the defrauded in the cause of mistake.

On the other hand, insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is not a confession of the defendant, it shall be determined by 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, and the criminal intent is not a conclusive intention but a dolus

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8726 Decided August 21, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1697 Decided June 23, 2009, etc.). Based on the above legal principle, health care units were duly mentioned in the instant case, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the victim’s statement to the effect that the victim was the head of a national bank branch from Defendant B from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, and even G having no particular interest with the victim or the Defendants, the victim stated that the victim took the same purport while communicating with Defendant B in the court of the court of the court below.