A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The consortium comprised of the victim and the Dispute Resolution D, the Dispute Resolution E, and F (hereinafter “instant consortium”).

B) As between September 25, 2009, a standard contract for entrusted operation services related to events concluded on September 25, 2009 (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

(2) As the Defendant submitted a false tax invoice in order to receive service costs already determined at the time of the contract in the process of ex post facto settlement, it is not a crime of fraud, even if the Defendant submitted a false tax invoice in order to receive service costs already determined at the time of the contract. (2) Furthermore, the employee in charge of the victim paid the instant service costs even with the knowledge that the tax invoice submitted by I and H was false, and there is no causation between deception and the disposal act.

3) Lastly, the Defendant did not know the fact that I, H, and AM did not participate in the procedure for the settlement of accounts related to the instant service contract and did not know the fact that I, H, and AM submitted a false tax invoice to the victim, and the Defendant did not have any intent to commit fraud.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, determination of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The contract special terms and conditions of the instant service agreement are the following settlement agreement (hereinafter “instant settlement agreement”).

The facts contained in this case. The institutions belonging to the consortium of this case submitted evidentiary documents to the victim in order to receive the full contract amount under the service contract of this case, but return them several times, and they made a false tax invoice, etc. as shown in the facts charged of this case and received the full amount of service payment from the victim.