1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

2. Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

3...

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In spite of the absence of intent to acquire money from a victim, the lower court accepted the facts charged in this case and convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s sentence (2) sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing to KRW 5,00,000, which is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the lower court agreed with the victim and the victim wanted the Defendant’s wife; (b) the Defendant has the history of having been punished for the same kind of crime; and (c) the amount acquired by the Defendant is considerable; and (d) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion 1) insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of mistake of facts, is not a confession by the Defendant, the criminal intent 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 before and after the crime. See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008 (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant would have a public official receive retirement allowances from the victim as well as the Defendant, at the time of borrowing the instant money from the victim (her spouse) on July 18, 2011, but if A fails to make money.