The judgment below

The remainder, other than the dismissed part of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, when misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, was carrying out smoothly the instant project at the time when the Defendant introduced C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)’s cruise and hotel chain business (hereinafter “instant project”), but there was a delay in the acquisition of ships to be used for the project due to the loan free capital, etc. from K, and various complaints against management after the occurrence of the instant project.

However, the defendant believed that the above business will success in the situation where he did not grasp the exact progress of the business in this case by thoroughly deceiving one of the partners of the business in this case, and he also invested a large amount of investment funds from the victim and invested them in the business. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have induced the victim, and the defendant did not have any intent to commit the crime of deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, of fraud, has to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions. The intent of the crime is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to do so.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). Meanwhile, as a subjective element of the constituent elements of a crime, dolusent intent means an uncertainty of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, and it is permissible to do so, and there is awareness of the possibility of occurrence of a crime in order to have had dolusent intent.