A. In relation to the scope of the amount of deceitation by a prosecutor (1) , the victim consistently states that the amount delivered to G at the request of the criminal investigation agency to the court of the court below is KRW 10 million, and in full view of other various circumstances, it is reasonable to recognize that the sum of the amount acquired by deception by the defendant is KRW 20 million and the sum of the amount acquired by deception is KRW 17 million, while it is reasonable to recognize that the amount obtained by deception by the victim is KRW 17 million, and the judgment of the court below acquitted some of the defendants on this part.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Considering the following circumstances along with evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts, the court below's determination that the amount of fraud of this case is KRW 17 million, not the amount of fraud of this case, is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

(1) After the police and prosecutorial investigation, the victim E appeared as a witness in the court of the court below and responded to the question at the request of the defendant about the amount paid to G several times. In particular, instead of paying the amount to the defendant, G, the creditor of the defendant, made a statement about whether he paid the amount to be paid to G.

However, the victim’s statement is not simply consistent with the amount paid to G, but is paid to G with “cash” or KRW 10 million as “cash.” The victim’s statement paid KRW 8 million as “cash.” The remaining KRW 2 million as “cash” was whether the prosecutor’s office’s office’s salary receipt account.