The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the understanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the part not guilty (the point of fraud by the prosecutor) and the part guilty (the point of the act of receiving money without permission) are deemed to be in an ordinary competition relationship, and thus, the application of the provisions of Article 40 of the Criminal Act was additionally charged. However, the act of receiving money without permission does not include deception itself, and the crime itself is a separate crime with different elements, and the form of the act or the protected legal interest is different. Therefore, it is reasonable to view both crimes as a substantive competition relationship rather than a commercial competition relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10414, Feb. 29, 2008). The evidence submitted by the prosecutor is sufficient to fully recognize the fact that the defendants deceiving the victims as if they had the intent or ability to pay the investment profits and allowances that the Defendants promised to complete, and obtained by obtaining the total amount of KRW 105,910,000 from the victims.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered not guilty on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to prove this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

The judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (section 2,00,000 won of each fine) is too uneasible and unfair.

As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, so long as the defendant does not make a confession. Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value to lead the judge to feel true that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt about the defendant's guilt, it is