A. misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part) refers to the victim's second statement that the victim's family members would go uncomfortable without the victim's consent, and the victim paid 458,760,000 won to the defendant over 148 times under the name of the victim, such as the value of the deposit of contract for six years since the financial situation has aggravated, and the victims paid 458,760,000 won to the defendant for 6 years, and even though the victims stated that it is difficult for the defendant to exercise the right of contract due to the lack of money, the defendant forced the defendant to exercise the right of contract with the second son and continued to exercise the right of contract with the second son, and the second son stated that there was no health problem before the victim begins the right of the deposit of contract, there is a considerable number of victims who did not attend the contract, and it is difficult to confirm the purpose of the right of contract and the subject of the deposit of contract, and thus, the defendant's act of receiving money sufficiently from the victim's consent and its limit can be excluded.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts as to the acquittal portion

A. As to the part regarding the fraud of the instant facts charged, the lower court, based on the legal doctrine stated in its holding, comprehensively considered the following circumstances, the time and circumstances leading up to the filing of a complaint, etc.: (a) pretended to be effective without the Defendant’s intent to engage in an indecent act as if the Defendant were to believe the effect thereof; (b

(b) is beyond the scope of ordinary religious activities.