The conviction part is reversed, and the compensation order part against D is revoked.

A. The summary of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal 1) With respect to the fraud of the victim D among the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts, the Defendant invested in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Building 101 as before, and according to the investment agreement, it was determined that the Defendant could not claim for the return of the investment amount in the middle. However, even though D is required to return its own marriage funds on November 2009, it became necessary to demand the return of the investment amount, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from J without any choice but it was impossible to complete payment due to the aggravation of the financial situation. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too heavy.

B. The summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal 1) With respect to the fraud of the victim E among the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts, the victim was only a person working for the removal-related company, but did not carry out the redevelopment or the business of carrying out the redevelopment itself, and thus did not know about the redevelopment business. The introduction of the defendant to the new and new construction of the H redevelopment project was already paid to the defendant, and in light of the consistent statement of the victim, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired 39 million won by deceiving the victim as the membership fee of the H redevelopment project. 2) The above punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing is too somewhat weak.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts by the defendant and prosecutor

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) the victim demanded from the investigative agency to return to the Defendant the amount of KRW 25 million invested by the victim under the former LA building 101, and the Defendant borrowed 50 million from the J in the name of the victim.