Although it is true that the defendant in mistake of facts received money from C, it is nothing more than that the defendant who believed that the F will be a business that the F makes an investment with C would be well-grounded, and it is not a defraudation of money by deceiving C, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Considering all the sentencing conditions, including the fact that the defendant was the first offender of unfair sentencing and his mistake is in depth divided, the court below's imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant served as the Defendant from around 2004 to around 2006, but did not receive monthly payment from the said company since 2006; (ii) the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the Victim C, such as paying interest of KRW 18 million to KRW 5 million from the Defendant's debt amount to KRW 5 million from around 2005 to KRW 6 million; (iii) the Defendant first started to teach the Defendant with C on December 2, 2006, which was an important business day before receiving money from C; (iii) the Defendant was staying in the Republic of Korea through e-mail, but the Defendant did not receive money from the Republic of Korea, including business operation expenses of the Philippines; and (iv) the Defendant did not receive money from the Defendant’s investment account under the name of the Deposit Co., Ltd. by means of fraud.