All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not deceiving victims as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there was no intention to commit fraud by the Defendant. 2) The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts by the Defendant’s subjective constituent elements of fraud 1) Unless the Defendant makes a confession, 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 financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime. Since dolusence as a subjective constituent element of crime, fraud is also established even through dolus negligence. It refers to the case where dolus negligence is recognized as uncertain, and it is not only the awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime but also the intention to consider the possibility of the occurrence of the crime to allow the risk of the crime. In addition, the determination of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime should not depend on the statement of the offender, but also be confirmed from the perspective of the offender, taking into account how the general public can commit the crime in question if it is based on the specific circumstances such as the form of the act committed outside the victim and the situation of the act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1726.).