A. The Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

In other words, the victim entered into a subcontract with H who is not the defendant, and the defendant did not participate in the conclusion of the above subcontract, and the amount of KRW 20 million received from the victim, which the defendant borrowed money to H in the name of the office operating expenses.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, in particular, the witness J, each investigation agency of H, and the court below's legal statement, the defendant entered H Corporation: (a) entered into the contract with H and ordered H to enter into the subcontract for the removal work; (b) the defendant entered into the subcontract for the removal work; (c) the victim who believed that the defendant has a business right in relation to E and paid rebates to H, would subcontract part of the removal work; (c) the victim requested the defendant to prepare the contract for the removal work in the name of B (hereinafter referred to as "B") on September 2, 2015, but the defendant requested that H enter into the contract for the removal work in the name of B, and prepared the contract under the name of H and H to receive rebates; and (b) the contract becomes void if the victim entered into the contract with H and H, the contract becomes void. < Amended by Act No. 13093, Sep. 2, 2015>