All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal 1) A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts (1) - the defendant is aware of the harm and injury by taking advantage of the victim’s old situation, and he is aware of the intent to obtain fraud, such as receiving KRW 100 million as a value of the bill of contract.

Despite that fact, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) which is unfair in sentencing is too unfluent.

2) The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Where the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the prosecutor’s fact-finding is notified of the victim’s frighting or promising the victim to give compensation under the pretext of gambling, etc., the crime of fraud ought to be established beyond the permissible limits as traditional custom or religious activity (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do12460, Nov. 9, 2017). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, exceeding the permissible limits as a religious activity of the Defendant, solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, as stated in its reasoning, exceeds the bounds that the Defendant’s act is permitted as a religious activity.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

If the circumstances cited by the lower court differ from the circumstances cited by the lower court and the following circumstances were found based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court was justifiable to have acquitted the facts charged in this part.

① The victim had been able to say that her husband should take care of the same thing as her husband had suffered from an accident since her her husband, and that she had to take care of her husband (207 pages, 215). At the time of the first arrival of the Defendant, the victim requested her to take care of her body immediately after her arrival (470 pages, and 208 pages of the investigation records). At the time, the Defendant stated to the effect that she would not have been able to reach her speed as much as possible, but the victim actively contacted the Defendant and visited her body (209 pages of the trial record). In light of these circumstances, the victim is entitled to receive the right to receive her body from the beginning.