The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, with the knowledge that there was a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by deceiving AS from the actual existence of a gold leader, had the victim L/Y borrow money, and had the victim AC keep money in custody in order to create a fund list with the awareness that there was an actual existence of a gold leader and underground fund by deceiving AT and AR, knowing that there was an actual existence of a gold leader and underground fund.

Therefore, there was no intention to commit fraud against the accused.

B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (each of the crimes of Articles 1, 5, and 12 on the market: imprisonment of two years; imprisonment of two years; imprisonment of two to four; and imprisonment of three years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the criminal intent of defraudation or misunderstanding of legal principles can be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1218, Nov. 13, 1990) as long as the Defendant does not make a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1218, Nov. 13, 1990). ① the Defendant asserted that the Defendant believed the existence of gold or underground funds on the ground of the words “S or GaT, etc.” (i) the Defendant did not present any other grounds, and (ii) did not know that he was able to trust AS or AT such as social status or personal relations, and (iii) did not have any other security measures to purchase gold or underground funds, and (iv) the Defendant did not have any difficulty in purchasing money without any specific pressure.