Defendant

A. 2. The Prosecutor’s Defendant B

A. Defendant A1) Defendant A’s fraud part related to the restaurant (Article 1 of the judgment of the court below) Defendant A would allow Defendant B to operate the restaurant at the G construction site (hereinafter the above construction referred to as “instant construction”).

'The fact that the defendant was introduced to the defendant B while speaking is recognized.

However, Defendant A was merely a delivery of Defendant B’s horses to E, and Defendant B did not know that he had no intention or ability to allow Defendant B to operate a restaurant.

Therefore, Defendant A does not support the joint principal offender's liability for fraud related to the restaurant as Defendant B's box.

2) The fraudulent part related to the civil works (Article 2 of the judgment of the court below) did not mean that Defendant A asked Defendant A to “I would have the civil works among the instant construction works, which they would be ordered to receive,” and there was no conspiracy with Defendant B about the said civil construction works.

Defendant

A Recognizing that he received KRW 10 million from E on July 22, 2013, the fact that he received KRW 10 million from E, but the above KRW 10 million was borrowed from E under the guarantee of Defendant B, and it was not received as expenses for receiving contracts for the above civil works.

Therefore, Defendant A does not support the joint principal offender's liability for fraud related to Defendant B's civil engineering works.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the prosecutor (the Defendant A shall be sentenced to 2 years of suspended sentence in August, community service work hours in 120 hours, and the Defendant B shall be sentenced to 6 months of suspended sentence of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

1. Defendant A’s crime related to Defendant A’s “B cafeteria” was committed in collusion with B, and the victim E was selected as a maintenance company at the G construction site on June 2013.

It is intended to operate a restaurant at the construction site.

The union head and the secretary have to take personnel affairs.