The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain fraud at the time of the instant case.

2. Determination

A. On November 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E (60) in the office of D (ju) located in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and instead, the Defendant made an investment of KRW 15 million in money with a patent right if he/she made an investment of KRW 15 million with a new product developed by a new product that is produced by the 10 to 10,000,000 in the old day, which is produced by the F doctor’s research and development of a new product that can be seen as efficient as 10 to 10,000 in the old day, thereby making an investment of KRW 15,00,000 in money.

However, there was no intention or ability to make the victim's solar accelerator sample.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 12,00,000 from the victim as the agricultural bank passbook in the name of Defendant G, under the pretext of investment.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

(c)

1) In light of the above legal principles, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, 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 transaction, unless the Defendant confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2630, Jan. 20, 198; 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004).

It is difficult to conclude otherwise, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this.

A) On November 2014, the Defendant: (a) provided technology to the victim and the Defendant; (b) provided the boiler; and (c) provided the said boiler with a plant to produce the boiler.