The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A had no intention to commit fraud, and thus, the facts charged cannot be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Prosecutor 1) According to the evidence of evidence against Defendant B (Definitely unfair) that the court below sentenced Defendant A to Defendant A (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unfinite and unfair. 2) According to the evidence against Defendant B (Definitely negligent), Defendant B acquired KRW 40 million from the victim C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in determining the defendant A’s assertion, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction, unless the defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2630, Jan. 20, 198; 97Do2630, Dec. 10, 2004; 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004). In a commodity transaction relationship, whether the crime of fraud by defraudation is established shall be determined by whether the defendant had the intent or ability to pay the price to the victim, even though the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price for supply

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7481 Decided November 24, 2005, etc.). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, even if the defendant A was unable to pay the price of goods, etc. due to lack of financial resources at the time, it can be sufficiently recognized that the victims deceiving him with a vague expectation that he would be able to pay the price of goods, etc. due to the smooth flow of funds if the business promoted was successful.

The above defendant's assertion of mistake is accepted.