All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. In relation to Defendant 1’s fraud, Defendant 3 as indicated in the lower judgment’s judgment, the Defendant is bound by V, the Director-General in charge of K, while making efforts to contract a set-off to the victim for a set-off of a set-off construction work, and thus, the contract was not concluded.

The defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of defraudation.

B) In relation to the 4th fraud of the decision of the court below, the Defendant introduced the P and W with the right to develop the O Nomno iron mine to the victim, and the victim entered into a contract for the victim to engage in s/W directly with P and W and to engage in s/W.

The defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of defraudation.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court’s judgment based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court that determined that the crime of fraud No. 3 1 of the lower judgment was as follows.

① At the time of the instant case, LA Co., Ltd., the representative director of the LA Co., Ltd., is the LA Co., Ltd., and at the investigative agency, AA Co., Ltd., a corporation in charge of the instant LA Co., Ltd., completed 80% fairness from the date of the instant LA Co., Ltd., which was awarded a contract by the KAA Co., Ltd. to the KA and completed 80% fairness from the date of the instant LA Co., Ltd., and the LA Co., Ltd. stated to the effect that there was no contract with M, the Defendant, the representative of the LA Co., Ltd., and the Defendant

However, V made a statement at the investigative agency that it is not related to K, and the defendant had already been aware of such circumstances, and the defendant stated to the effect that the defendant did not have prepared an agreement related to the above cooking work, and ③ the defendant is in custody of the agreement received from V in relation to the order of the above cooking construction work at the investigative agency.