2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B conspired with Co-Defendant A in collusion with Co-Defendant A in order to provide new construction works even if it did not have the intent or ability to provide money from the victim, and as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, the aforementioned circumstances were concealed as if it would normally subcontract new construction works to the victim, thereby

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake cannot be accepted.

① Co-defendant A is the representative of E, and Defendant B is the head of the business headquarters of E and finally ordered construction works externally with A’s approval, and the subcontractor was selected.

② Defendant B received an order from a person interested in the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Urban Residential Housing Corporation (hereinafter “G Corporation”), which Defendant B had been proceeding through E, etc., to seek money from the victim, and said, around December 21, 2012, Defendant B told the victim I to lend KRW 10,000 to the victim I.

At the time, Defendant B prepared a written agreement with the competent authority on December 13, 2012, in which the result of conditional consent regarding G construction is stated, to order G construction by the F to receive the results of the deliberation by the Construction Committee as of December 13, 2012, but the present construction deliberation is underway, and when all permissions are completed from the government office, the said construction will be succeeded to A and promised to the said construction.

“The” shows a written confirmation of the F Preparation, which is also the competent authority.