A. Without being misunderstanding of facts, the injured party believed to be selected as a school uniform manufacturer and would return the money to the injured party if not.

Since there was no intention of deception for the defendant, the defendant did not have the intention of deception.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of facts: (i) according to the victim's statement, E did not explicitly demand money on the condition that E takes a part in the middle role, such as student uniforms; (ii) at the time E did not have a defendant; (iii) since E and the defendant are between the regular director of the same company and the chairperson, E and the defendant believed E as they are. (ii) The defendant, E and F visited the victim's office; (iii) the defendant visited the victim's office; (iv) the defendant mentioned the victim's post I and called as a bridge for the victim; and (iii) I used student uniforms as a bridge for the victim; (iv) the defendant did not receive the order of work instruction and sampling in the previous year; and (v) the defendant and the victim did not receive the order of the victim; and (v) the defendant and the victim did not receive the order of the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime, the fact that the basic recipient is the recipient, and the amount of damage.