Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the act of receiving distribution by submitting a lease contract with a deposit amount of KRW 80 million under an agreement with C cannot be deemed to constitute deception in fraud. It is difficult to see that there is causation between the defendant's demand for distribution and the distribution of KRW 80 million between the defendant's demand for distribution and the distribution of KRW 80 million, and the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant did not have intention to

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below held that the defendant entered into a re-contract with C on March 2, 2007 and newly entered into the 80 million won fake lease contract with C, so there is no deception, and even if it constitutes deception, the defendant did not have a criminal intent to commit fraud. As such, the defendant's act of receiving dividends by submitting it to the court constitutes deception, since the contract is null and void as the deposit amount of 80 million won submitted to the court at the time of reporting the right and demand for distribution on April 27, 2010 is made by false agreement, and at least 30 million won is not a deception. The argument that the defendant cannot be said to have a fraudulent act as to the portion of the true lease deposit of 30 million won, since he did not obtain a fixed date on February 24, 2005, the defendant did not have a preferential right to payment of 30 million won as well as 30 million won from the date of obtaining a fixed date on February 24, 2005.