A. misunderstanding of facts 1) A person who borrows 55 million won as stated in the facts charged from the primary victim's primary argument is not F, the owner of the building, not the F, which is the owner of the building. The defendant introduced the victim to F and let F borrow money from the victim. However, according to the agreement between the defendant, F, and the victim, the defendant was directly transferred 5 million won from the victim. Therefore, even if the defendant borrowed the above money from the victim, not from the victim, but from the victim, the person who is obligated to return the above money is also F. 2) even though the defendant borrowed the above money from the victim, the defendant did not borrow the money from the victim due to the completion of the mushroom plant and the failure to pay the money from the owner of the building.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence of the lower court as to the primary argument, the lender of KRW 55 million as stated in the facts charged is deemed the Defendant, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

1) The victim E stated that the other party to the loan of money is the defendant as consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below. The defendant was directly transferred money from the victim. 2) There is no reasonable ground to believe that the F, the owner of the building prior to the commencement of the construction work, borrowed money from the other party to pay the construction price to the defendant.

3) On August 2012, 2012, the Defendant transferred money remitted from the victim to F police officers from 20 million won (the Defendant did not state such fact at the police investigation stage).

The Defendant asserts that this is a loan, and if the Defendant asserts, F.