A. The Defendant had the intent and ability to select D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) operated by the victim as a service company for the execution of reconstruction by proxy, and the Defendant’s payment of KRW 50 million from the victim was not a condition to return to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and at the time, the Defendant had the intent and ability to return the above KRW 50 million if D was not selected as a service company, and thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the original judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

(1) The Defendant was not delegated with any authority regarding the selection of the service company by the Re-building Promotion Committee, in which H was the chairperson.

② At the lower court, H testified to the effect that, around 2013, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the victim, the E-building Promotion Committee failed to promote its business normally.

③ The victim consistently stated to the effect that “the Defendant should return the down payment of KRW 50 million to terminate the contract with F” from the investigative agency to the original trial. The victim introduced the victim to F, and the victim introduced the victim to F, as well as the above KRW 50 million paid to the Defendant.