The judgment of the court below (excluding the part dismissing a compensation order) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. As to the fraud against the victim B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), the Defendant had not conspiredd with D, and the victim Co., Ltd was aware that he borrowed money through the appearance of the same kind as the supply of old materials due to the difficulties in the operation of C, thereby deceiving the victim Co., Ltd.

shall not be deemed to exist.

As to the fraud against the victim D, the defendant shall complete payment after two weeks as stated in the facts charged.

In other words, there is no money borrowed from the victim D.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake as to the fraud against the victim company 1) In the case of a joint principal offender committing a crime by jointly processing more than two legal principles, there is no need to directly or explicitly make a conspiracy or conspiracy in the joint principal offender, and may be made objectively and implicitly. However, in any case, there is a combination of intent to jointly process a crime and jointly realize it. In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the point of solicitation, the facts constituting such subjective element should be proven by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the criminal intent by nature of the object.

Meanwhile, the joint commission of a crime by conspiracy is not based on the premise that all accomplices realize the requirement for the formation of a crime by themselves, and it is possible to cooperate with accomplices who implement the act in question to strengthen their decision on the act. Whether it is applicable should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, the intent to control the crime, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10704, Mar. 11, 2010). The deception as a requirement for fraud is widely known.