A. Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that the court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged against Defendant B and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, inasmuch as Defendant B believed that Defendant A had the intent and ability to operate the cafeteria to the victim K and arranged the conclusion of the contract between Defendant A and the victim.

B. The sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for five months) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing by the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence in the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are revealed: (a) Defendant B is entitled to the right to operate a restaurant for the same business site; (b) Defendant B was not under construction work since Q received KRW 20 million from the same business site on May 2008; (c) Defendant B is entitled to the right to operate a restaurant for the same business site; and (d) Defendant B was paid KRW 50 million against F around December 2008; and (c) the construction work was not under work in the same manner as O around March 2009; and (c) Defendant B again received money as stated in the facts charged in this case, and thus, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is difficult to accept the aforementioned allegation of facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant A made a confession once in the trial, and the lower court agreed with the victim K, and the instant case.