Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles paid KRW 300 million to D Co., Ltd. as security deposit for the right to operate the restaurant, the defendant was aware that he had the right to operate the restaurant at the time, and the contract was normally concluded for the entrusted operation of the restaurant with E, but the contract was terminated later and all the amounts of KRW 50 million were returned.

The Defendant did not know that the money remitted by E was remitted to the victim, and did not directly conclude the entrusted operation contract with the victim.

Therefore, since the defendant did not deceiving the victim, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles of fraud.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant in the judgment of the court below also argued the same purport as the reasons for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion by giving a detailed statement of the decision.

The lower court stated to the effect that the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court were: (a) the Defendant entered the victim’s restaurant along with the Defendant’s early June 2015, prior to the conclusion of the consignment operation contract with E; (b) E introduced the Defendant to the victim as “B manager”; (c) upon presenting the above restaurant consignment contract entered into with the Defendant, E received KRW 85 million from the victim; and (d) upon the Defendant’s delivery of KRW 50 million, E stated to the effect that “E was to operate the restaurant with the victim, and to the effect that “E was to receive KRW 5 million from the victim”; and (d) on July 2016, 2016, the Defendant stated that “E was to receive KRW 50 million from the victim,” and that “E was to have the victim and the victim first stated on August 2016.”