All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendants guilty of the facts charged of this case even though the defendants did not have the intention of deceitation is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. 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 defendant's financial history, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the defendant is led to confession. The crime of fraud is established even by dolus negligence. The subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where dolusence is recognized as unclear possibility of occurrence of the crime, and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is recognized, as well as the case where there is awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime in order to have willful negligence. Furthermore, whether the actor has permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime must be confirmed from the perspective of the offender, taking into account how the possibility of occurrence of the crime is assessed based on specific circumstances such as the form of the act committed outside and the situation of the act, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8781 Decided January 18, 2008, etc.). Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendants had the intent to defraud the horses intentionally.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake is without merit.

① Defendant A, while drinking alcohol in Defendant B and Kim Sea as the main point of this case, said Defendant A said that Defendant A would have calculated the drinking value in cash by calling to G, who is a business officer in charge of the instant main point of this case. However, at the time, Defendant A could calculate the drinking value.