A. As to the fraud No. 1 of the 1st year table of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below based on the mistake of facts, the Defendant delivered all the deposit amount of KRW 110 million from the victim AG to the lessor (B). It can be deemed that the Defendant was duly authorized to conclude the lease contract, or the lessor was ratified as he did not raise any particular objection, and thus the lease contract was concluded.

On a different premise, the court below found the defendant guilty of fraud No. 1 per year of crime sight table 1, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below also argued to the purport similar thereto. The court below held that the defendant argued to the effect that the court below was duly adopted and investigated, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the defendant consistently granted the authority to conclude a lease contract in the form of a monthly lease contract from the investigative agency to the court below, and there was no authority to conclude a lease contract in the form of a monthly lease contract from the defendant, and (ii) the victim AG transferred 10 million won to the account of B on June 21, 2012, which was before the initial lease contract was concluded, to the defendant. However, at the time, B and C were not well aware of the specific facts and details of the conclusion of a monthly lease contract for each building including the above building, and even in the case of a monthly lease contract, the deposit was transferred to the account of B in the form of a first lease contract with the defendant.