The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be 500,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant is believed to have received money for each removal work from E or H and received money for the above removal work from the victim C, and as a result, E or H did not actually perform the removal work agreed upon. As such, the defendant did not receive money for the commission of removal work from the victim by deceiving the victim with the criminal intent of deception, and five million won for the introduction of Daegu I removal work, respectively.) and unfair sentencing. 2. The decision of this court was made on the following grounds:

A. (1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the crime in the first instance judgment, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction performance, etc. insofar as the Defendant does not confession. The criminal intent is sufficient, not conclusive intention, but dolusent intent is sufficient, and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain. In order to have dolusent intent, the possibility of occurrence of the crime must be recognized, as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime. Furthermore, the intention of the offender is required to recognize the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether the offender permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime should be confirmed from the perspective of the offender’s psychological condition by taking into account how the possibility of occurrence of the crime is assessed if the general public is based on specific circumstances such as the form and situation of the act external, rather than dependent on the statement of the offender.

In this case, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the existence of willful negligence, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime that has been prosecuted, and there is room for the judge to make a reasonable doubt.