A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that, although the Defendant, by deceiving the victim D with the right to operate a restaurant, or without soliciting Co-defendant B, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is not required under the law to jointly process two or more crimes, but is only a combination of intent to realize a crime through the joint processing of crimes by two or more persons, and if such a combination is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relationship is established if the intent is made, and even those who do not directly participate in the act of execution as long as such conspiracy was made, they are held liable as joint principal offenders against the other accomplices. Therefore, even if the conspiracy of fraud did not know the method of deception specifically, it cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that the defendant could not give the victim the right to operate the restaurant, and thus, the defendant was jointly aware of the fact that the defendant did not have the intent to acquire the restaurant under the pretext of acquiring the right to operate the restaurant under the name of co-defendant.

B. The Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim.