A. Since misunderstanding of facts is true that the defendant prepared the instant agreement without the choice of threat C from C, the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even though he did not dismiss C, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court.

The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the following circumstances: (i) prior to the formation of the instant agreement, the Defendant and C were in a situation where there was a consensus on the formulation of the agreement on the condition of the payment of KRW 3 million between the Defendant and C; (ii) at the time of the formation of the instant agreement, C refused the Defendant’s demand to make a subsequent payment of the agreed amount, and set the time and place for the preparation of the agreement.

In accordance with the Defendant’s proposal that he was come to the office of the Defendant, ③ the instant agreement was written in writing by the Defendant’s own pen as stated in C, and there is no special circumstance to deem that the agreement was written in a psychological unstable state, such as scaming down or falling down on the pen, ④ the Defendant filed a complaint on March 8, 2017, which was after the date of the preparation of the instant agreement ( September 7, 2016), for violation of the Marriage Brokerage Business Management Act, and for fraud on August 22, 2017, each of the instant agreements was filed on August 22, 201, but there was no statement that the Defendant made the instant agreement in the course of investigation, or filed a report on the business C as a crime of attack or intimidation, and ⑤ the Defendant filed the instant agreement with the Gwangju District Court on October 10, 2017 as the Defendant’s motion for damages as the Defendant’s motion to Defendant 2017.