The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

The judgment below

. Innocence.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the operation of the J, and the Defendant started with the opening of the J which became difficult to operate due to the Medice situation that occurred in early 2015, and tried to normalize the wabur by entering the S which is a professional manager around January 2016, but it is merely limited to the transfer of J to another person due to the lack of pressure on the J’s explanation of building owner around July 2016, and the conclusion of the contract with the above victims M and P, as S, was led by the Defendant, and only affixed a seal on the contract as the representative. Comprehensively considering the above circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant could not be recognized as a criminal intent by acquiring the victim M, P deposit and the goods price, but the lower court erred by misapprehending legal principles or by understanding erroneous facts, thereby rendering a judgment of unfair sentencing against the Defendant. 2)

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have borne excessive obligations by accepting “Lwa Holdings” and “J” throughout insolvent. As such, the Defendant was an urgent business structure to pay fixed expenses incurred in the operation of the wabing System solely by operating the wab and generating profits therefrom. The Defendant is the Party B, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “B, etc.”).

In full view of the fact that only the J underwriting agreement was presented to the Defendant, and that the Defendant could sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant acquired the money by deception B, etc. as a criminal intent, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged by erroneously recognizing the fact or by erroneously understanding the legal doctrine. 2) The lower court’s above sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.