The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (the factual errors and inappropriate sentencing) 1 of mistake of facts committed by the victim as a de facto agent of the victim’s employment, the Defendant merely provided the victim’s diverse and broadcast contributions, etc. with the victim’s diverse and the victim’s diverse, and paid the money for his activities or activities, and did not receive money as the funds for his diversing activities by saying that he will make contributions to divers, etc.., and the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain money. Since the money received from the victim was used for the actual activities while diverseing with the victim’s instructions, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain money. Accordingly, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant acquired money as a part of the street activity fund for broadcasting contributions, etc. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a case where the accused denies the criminal intent of defraudation, the facts constituting the subjective element of such crime are bound to be proven by the method of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the criminal intent due to the nature of the things given the nature of the things. In this case, what constitutes indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the connection of the facts based on the detailed observation or analysis capabilities based on normal empirical rule.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645 Decided February 23, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10418 Decided October 28, 2010, etc.) B.

The consistent "Defendants are not employed at the monthly level from investigative agencies to the original trial, but at any time, the defendant's high-rises or drone writerss are not employed.