The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, although the defendant did not deceiving victims, and the defendant did not have the intention of deception. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in determining the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, shall be determined by 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. Since the crime of fraud is also established by dolus negligence negligence, it refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, and it is acceptable in light of the possibility of the crime of willful negligence. In order to have had dolus negligence, it is not only the awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, but also there is an internal intent to allow the risk of the crime. Furthermore, it is not dependent on the statement of the offender, but also on the statement of the offender whether the offender was aware of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, and it is necessary to confirm the psychological state from the perspective of the offender.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.)