A. (1) misunderstanding of facts (1) Defendant A and the instant crime are not recruited, but merely the Defendant believed that B would be able to attract KRW 100 million to foreign capital and introduced B to the J (hereinafter “J”) which is the complainant.

After all, the Defendant was completely excluded from the business related to the inducement of foreign capital and the Defendant’s assertion that B and the victim were the victims caused damage to K as the former owner while promoting so-called foreign capital inducement business.

In other words, on August 2012, the Defendant, regardless of B or foreign capital inducement, concluded a management agreement with the J and carried out such agreement, and was believed to have been actually carried out the inducement of foreign capital as claimed by B. After introducing B to J, the Defendant was notified that he would be placed in the said business on December 2012.

Since then, while H, who actually operates B and J, established a company by directly establishing and attracting foreign capital, the defendant filed a complaint against K, the owner of the land and the funds, who was held responsible for the foreign capital.

(2) Defendant B did not invite to commit the instant crime with Defendant A, and only received the money that A gave while he was well aware of having committed a deceitful act with the J.

In other words, the Defendant, separate from this case, entered into a financial consulting agreement with A and R, acquired money in the name of a commission that enables loan brokerage, and was promoting the inducement of foreign capital for the S business that was promoted on the other hand, but A committed the instant crime by deceiving J(H) by using it.

The Defendant was aware of the fact that the money sent by A was acquired through deception from J (H) and only received the money from A with the knowledge that it was for the recovery of damage caused by R-related cases.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the unfair sentencing Defendant A.