A. When the Defendant and the husband of the Defendant, instead of the victim, who was the son of the network C, were threatened with the Defendant’s her husband’s her son, who was threatened the Defendant to bring a criminal prosecution against the deceased, the victim had been willing to bring a lawsuit in order to receive the return of unjust benefits equivalent to the support fee for the deceased. However, according to the counsel’s advice, the Defendant brought a lawsuit by using the loan certificate received from the deceased, and the Defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (a) the Defendant and E wanted to have the deceased with the ability to judge aged age and deposited KRW 146 million in the account of the deceased on February 19, 2014; (b) E deposited the above account into the account of the deceased on February 25, 2014; (c) as if he remitted the above money to the deceased on February 25, 2014, the Defendant and E prepared a false loan certificate as if he lent the money to the deceased; (d) the Defendant and E presented the above loan increase, lease agreement, account transfer details, etc. to the deceased’s heir, and (e) demanded transfer of the deposit money of the house where the deceased had resided, but the victim refused this request, the Defendant, who received the aforementioned false loan certificate from the deceased to the deceased, and had the deceased’s heir, claiming for support fees against the deceased, the heir of the deceased.

However, even according to the E's statement, only the defendant has contacted only once when E is named.