A. The judgment of the court below which found all guilty of the facts charged in this case of mistake of fact is erroneous as follows.

(1) The defendant's fraud against the victim F. It is believed that the representative T.D.'s office representative T.D. provides that "it may enter into a construction contract for the construction of an officetel which can recommend the city construction project by making it a contractor, a joint executor Q." It is soon believed that the construction of an officetel was conducted at the initiative of T. On November 201, 201, T. He sent the contents of T to E, and introduced T. E around November 4, 201, at the same place with the defendant, T. H E. L., the consignee, T., the defendant, and the 20 million won cash storage certificate with the defendant, and the defendant exchangeed the letter of performance under the name of the defendant on November 23, 2011, and then transferred it to the victim of T.T. 2 million won under the direction of the victim, and the defendant was not subject to damage from T.T. 4 million won under the condition that T.T. 2 million won was transferred to the victim of T.

(2) The fact of fraud against the victim J is that “Negggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg