We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

As seized gallonos8(No. 1).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: Defendant 1 received money from the victims after hearing that the Defendant would receive money from the staff of Bosing singing singing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing s

B. The above sentence of the first instance court by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant filed an appeal against all of the judgment below, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the two appeals.

Since each of the judgment below's crimes is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

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

A. In a case where the criminal defendant denies the criminal intent of defraudation, the facts constituting the subjective element of such crime are bound to be proven by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the criminal intent by nature of the object. 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 link of facts based on the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule.

On the other hand, the elements of crime are subjective elements.