A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”)

2) The victim limited liability company K (hereinafter referred to as “victim company”) was fully operated.

The contract of carriage with A was also concluded by A. The defendant believed that a long-term factory is normally operated, and the defendant introduced the representative director L of the victim company A and C, and did not participate in the crime of fraud by A. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely acting in accordance with A’s instructions, but did not conspired to acquire A, B and this case. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, and eight hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As indicated in the lower judgment regarding Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that: (a) Defendant B was well aware of the actual location of operating H, such as receiving a report on the situation of H periodically from the victim company A; (b) Defendant B knew of the fact that the management status of H was not good; (c) Defendant B conspired with the victim company, the representative director of the victim company, and introduced A et al. to indicate the current status; (c) Defendant B led to the conclusion of the contract with the victim company; (d) Defendant B led to the conclusion of the contract with the victim company; (c) determined the content of the contract and the amount of the deposit in consultation with L; and (d) Defendant B received KRW 100 million from the victim company to the account under the name of the victim company (hereinafter “I”); and (c) Defendant B requested the victim company to request part of the deposit amount and received KRW 30 million.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Defendant.