The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment is publicly announced.

1. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendants did not have conspired to mislead victims, and at the time they did not have the intent to commit fraud) and unfair sentencing. 2. The judgment of this court

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the offender’s financial history, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a definitive intention but to have dolusence. dolusence means the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain, and dolus negligence means the case where it is allowed by expressing that the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain. In order to have dolus negligence, there must be awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, and furthermore, there should be internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether the offender permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime, based on the specific circumstances such as the form or situation of the act committed outside, without depending on the statement of the offender, should be determined by considering how the possibility of occurrence of the crime is assessed, and even in such a case, there is no doubt that the prosecutor bears the burden of proof as to the subjective constituent element of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8726 Decided August 21, 2008, etc.). Meanwhile, the defendant is the defendant.