All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation of facts.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had a criminal intent to obtain fraud. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

① The Defendant’s husband K and E Co., Ltd.’s CEO had been found several times with “I” operated by the victim and his mother F, and solicited the Defendant to invest in gold-related business as described in the facts charged. On June 13, 2016, upon obtaining the consent of the victim in marina, KRW 100 million was remitted from the damaged party as a gold-related business investment fund. However, on June 16, 2016, the said money was remitted to the L Co., Ltd.’s business fund operated by her husband K’s son.

The victim stated that “I would not grant any absolute loan if I knew that I would have been used for any purpose other than the purpose of investment in gold-related business from the beginning.”

(2) When a defendant receives an investment from a victimized person, he/she shall hold the investment money, not in the circumstances under which he/she may invest in the gold-related business, and thus, he/she is required to return the money used for only two months.

Although there was no change to the purport that the Defendant had inevitably lent money to determine and acquired money from K, the Defendant did not explain the circumstances such as the suspension of investment to the victim, and there was no prior consent or understanding of the victim regarding the diversion of investment, and even if the victim had sought confirmation on several occasions, he/she deceivingd the victim as if he/she was used for the original purpose of investment (the victim was the victim on the date of the initial investment).