The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, KRW 16 million is the sum of the victims I.

Defendant

The Defendant was in custody to deliver the instant KRW 16 million to K after the issuance by a visa, and the Defendant was in custody, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though there was no deception of the victim I like the facts charged in the lower judgment, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (fine 8,000,000) is too unreasonable.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact and finding the defendant not guilty, although it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant borrowed each amount stated in the facts charged of this case from the victims on the premise of repayment.

Judgment

The defendant shall be the chairperson of G, an incorporated association, of this part of the facts charged concerning the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

On December 9, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, in the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H building, the victim I cannot receive visa issuance in a normal way due to the victim I’s illegal stay experience, and that, in order to obtain visa issuance through K, the Secretary General of the Labor Council, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “K shall issue one million won to China at its own expense,” and that “K shall issue to K at its own expense.” On the 30th of the same month, the Defendant again made a false statement to the effect that “K will deliver money as soon as K would have come to Chinese side and talk.” On the 30th of the same month, the victim would have to enter China, and that “K will deliver money to K, first of all, 15 million won, by remitting.”

However, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, he did not intend to pay K a business trip expense, and there was no demand from K to pay KRW 15 million under the name of a visa issuance, and the money received from the victim was thought to be used for an individual purpose, so even if he received money from the victim, it was illegal stay.