Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant A did not have a business relationship with B, and while maintaining a continuous business relationship with the victim, Defendant B was operated by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant company”).

(2) The lower court’s conviction against Defendant A is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, as it is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment, ten months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding Defendant A’s assertion of fraud 1) Unless the Defendant makes a confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, is bound 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 performing transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004). If the act of deception as an act of fraud does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of the juristic act, and it is sufficient if it is about the facts that form the basis of judgment for allowing the actor to perform the act of disposal desired by mistake, and thus, in a case of borrowing money and borrowing money, if the other party would not lend money if the real purpose was known, it shall be deemed that the deception, which is an act of fraud, has been committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do2828, Feb. 27, 1996).