The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, fraud against C and F.

1. On July 13, 2015, after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal, the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted on July 13, 2015 is examined to the extent that it supplements legitimate grounds of appeal.

In operating a student studying in New Zealand, the Defendant used part of the ordinary amount of money by receiving money from C and F to transfer his/her study expenses, etc., and the Defendant was unable to normally use the remaining amount of money due to the suspension of the operation of a U.S. due to his/her death in gambling after entering the Republic of Korea under the condition that some of the money remains, and is not the intention or ability to support his/her study expenses from the beginning or to support his/her study life.

Although the Defendant tried to receive money from N for the purpose of receiving money as insurance money from N’s prospective students, it is merely that the Defendant’s account to which money was deposited is not used in the wind where payment is suspended, and that the Defendant was not a criminal intent of defraudation from the beginning.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On July 19, 201, the summary of this part of the facts charged is that: (a) the Defendant was operating a B Studyer in New Zealand; and (b) the Defendant, at the level of B Study Center in New Zealand, made a false statement to the effect that, around July 19, 2011, the Defendant: (c) called, “on the part of B Study Center in New Zealand, he would provide the Victim C with support for studying abroad by remitting expenses, etc.; (d)” but, on the other hand, the Defendant was thought to be used for gambling at a casino. However, even if the Defendant was to receive money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to use it as expenses for studying; (e) the Defendant had the intention or ability to support his studying life. Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and immediately from the victim, was designated by the Defendant.