A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts as to the fraud against the Victim J, and misunderstanding the legal principles, the victim J has paid to the Defendants a performance deposit in order to obtain a contract for remodeling construction works and secondary civil engineering works (hereinafter “Reinforcement Military K Corporation”) in the same direction as that of the Reinforcement Military Department, and the said Defendant did not deceiving the victims with respect to the Reinforcement Military K Corporation.

In addition, the lower court did not have a substantial relation between the Defendants’ act of deception and the victim’s act of disposal of property on the part of the Defendants’ act of deception on the Hongcheon M-related construction with respect to the construction of a new complex in the large exhibition L, which was established by the lower court (hereinafter “ Daejeon L,”).

2) The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes set forth in 1 and 2 as indicated in the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts was conducted in concert with the projects of Defendant AC and Defendant A, Defendant B did not have participated in the business of attracting investments from the victim J, nor did he request the victim to transfer money or received money from the victim.

2) The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) against Defendant B, which was unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) The prosecutor consistently obtained 28 million won from the police by the victim J as to the acquittal portion against the Defendants.

In full view of the facts stated and the remittance details of the victim, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendants on the amount exceeding KRW 150 million, although the defendants could recognize the fact that they acquired 28 million from the damaged person, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.