A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts merely participated in the investment attraction of new financial branchism by O and did not participate in the instant funding agreement concluded between Defendant B and Defendant F, Defendant B and the victim F. However, on the premise that Defendant B conspired with Defendant B, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one hundred and sixty months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and one hundred and sixty hours of social service) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) the Defendant heard that it is possible to attract 12 billion won from the new financial branch owner from Defendant A, and accordingly entered into the instant financing agreement with the victim company. Since the investment in the victim company was rejected by the victim company from the Busan Capital, the victim company's refusal to conduct an inspection of the Busan Capital, and thus, even though the Defendant did not receive money from the victim company as consulting expenses, the court below's judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case against the Defendant on a different premise is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The judgment of the court below's decision of unfair sentencing against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and 160 hours of probation, social service, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the Defendants’ respective arguments of mistake of facts as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the following circumstances, namely, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the victim company’s employees, H, the agent of the victim company, consistently from the investigation process to the court of the court below, to the court of the court below, shall be the Vice-Chairperson B, if the Defendants were to have consistently “50 million won as consulting contract deposit.”