A. The Defendant, who is the husband of the victim, entered into a contract with F to suspend the execution of punishment verbally with F, and the application for parole, etc., and only received money from the victim as a fee.

There was no intention to commit the crime of fraud without deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in August, community service, and collection in 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the victim's specific and consistent statement, and the conversation between the defendant and the victim, the defendant does not have the intent or ability to take measures to transfer F to a female correctional institution or to release F from it early. The defendant is sufficiently guilty of the facts charged in the case of this case by stating that "F is transferred to a female correctional institution by using a friendly senior correctional officer through a prison officer, and is given convenience such as receiving medical treatment at a G hospital, and is released as soon as possible through suspension of execution of punishment, parole, and special amnesty." It is sufficient that the defendant received a transfer of KRW 25 million in sum from the victim. It is sufficiently recognized that he was guilty of the facts charged in the case of this case by deceiving the victim and at the same time receiving money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting public officials.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing is an act that damages the public trust in the fairness of the execution procedure and the non-purchase of the sentence, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is grave. Although the Defendant returned KRW 20 million to the victim at the lower court, the said returned KRW 20 million is the same as the money remitted from the victim.