A. Fact-misunderstanding Defendant received KRW 180,000,000 from the injured party under the pretext that the injured party would settle the dispute related to the price of goods, but the Defendant, in fact, made a solicitation to the high-ranking floor of the Republic of China of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"), and sought to resolve the case by requesting the above case to the law office in China, thereby acquiring money from the injured party.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court and the trial court, i.e.,: (a) the Defendant delivered money to the high-ranking level of China along with A; (b) A made a statement to the effect that there was no fact at the court of the lower court; and (c) A made a statement to the effect that there was no means to deliver money to the victim, even if the Defendant had made an endeavor to resolve a dispute over the price of goods by delivering money to the high-ranking level of China, etc.; (d) as such, A made a statement to the effect that there was no means to deliver money to the victim; (b) the Defendant, the representative director of the victim, and G et al. were credibility in the statement as above; and (b) there was no circumstance to deem that the Defendant was the high-ranking level of the Chinese government Party in Vietnam around September 201, but in fact there was no way to discuss the victim’s goods related disputes in the same place of meals in China.

One of the arguments is to delegate at the court of original instance to the law office.