All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was aware of the fact that he was guilty of the defendant's business of collecting the claim, and there was no conspiracy between the defendant and the singing staff of the singing and the fraud, and there was no intention to commit the fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case in collusion with the victim's scam scam scam scam scam and acquired or attempted to acquire the victims' money. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

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

The above-mentioned sentence of the court below by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud to judge the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the contents of the crime, the process of transaction execution, etc. unless the defendant

The crime of fraud is also established by willful negligence, but it refers to the case where the possibility of the crime of willful negligence is expressed to be uncertain as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, and it is acceptable to do so, and there was willful negligence.

In order to do so, there is a awareness of the possibility of occurrence of crime, and there is a internal intent to allow the risk of crime to occur.

If the general public considers the possibility of occurrence of the relevant criminal facts based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that was externally revealed without depending on the statement of the actor whether the actor admitted the possibility of occurrence of the criminal facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9497, Jan. 14, 2016). The Defendant asserts that the aforementioned facts are similar to the assertion of mistake in the lower court.