A. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A, C (Manopoe Undue Practices), and C (the imprisonment of Defendant A, the suspension of the execution of Defendant C’s imprisonment of August, the suspension of the execution of six months, and the community service order of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. With respect to the fact of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant B (De facto mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles, and joint fraud against Defendant B) and the victim D, Defendant B did not have any fact that the victim introduced C to Seoul E director, and there was no statement that the loan became final and conclusive. The victim’s request for the documents related to the loan of this case is not Defendant B but Defendant B. The victim’s statement of personnel expenses stated in Defendant B is that the victim would be the owner of the money. As such, Defendant B did not deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged. Meanwhile, there was no causal relationship between Defendant B and the disposal of the said money merely delivered money to the victim for personnel expenses, and the victim did not deliver the said money at the end of Defendant B. In addition, Defendant B and C should hear the victim’s delivery of KRW 15 million to A, and Defendant B and C did not notify the victim of the fact that the victim received KRW 20 million from the victim, and thus, Defendant B and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant B and the Defendant B’s charges.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in Defendant B, Defendant B stated that he would have judged that the victim himself was from G branch's origin.