The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the crime No. 2-B of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

No. 2-B. of the judgment of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although there was no intention to commit a crime by deceitation or misunderstanding of the legal principles (based on fraud), the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant fraud charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the crime No. 2 of the judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the crime No. 2 of the judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following, the prosecutor (related to occupational embezzlement) provided oil supplied by the oil supplier to the victim at the request of the victim, and received the commission for the supply of oil from the oil supplier. The oil supplier's oil payment claim is the same as the victim provided a security to the oil supplier due to the existence of the preferential right to the ship; the victim received the oil by specifying the ship and paid the price to the specific ship to the defendant; and the defendant paid the above price to the oil supplier, the defendant and the victim were in the consignment relationship and the defendant was in the custody status for the victim, but the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud as to the defendant's misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant makes a confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by willful negligence, it refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime that does not occur is uncertain as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, and it is permissible by the willful negligence.