The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for one year and four months, respectively.

except that this shall not apply.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) the Defendants were willing to establish a letter of credit in real money and sell the crowdfunding (hereinafter “instant crowdfunding”) supplied by the victim for 90 days, which is the settlement deadline of the credit, to settle the price for the goods as the sales proceeds; and (b) the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the price for the goods to the victim at the time of being supplied with the crowdfunding pockets by the victim.

The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in the legal doctrine related to the determination of mistake of facts, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the Defendant makes a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a conclusive intention but to have dolusent intent. In particular, the establishment of fraud by defraudation in the goods transaction relationship should be determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire goods, etc. from the victim by making a false statement as if the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the goods to the victim as at

(2) In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants were sufficiently aware that the Defendants were supplied with the instant crowdfunding tickets by making a false statement as stated in the instant facts charged even though they did not have the intent or ability to pay the price for the goods from the victim at the time of being provided with the instant crowdfunding tickets, and acquired them by taking them into account. Therefore, it is determined that the Defendants had the intention to acquire them by deceptive means, as stated in the instant facts charged, do not have any negligence.

. Defendants