A. It was true that misunderstanding of facts did not enable the victim to enter into a supply contract of the PB product (the NAE itself brand product; hereinafter “PB product”). However, since the NAE’s five stores were arranged to enter into a contract so that the MF product (the producer company F brand product; hereinafter “MD product”) can be supplied by selling it in the five stores of the NAEEE, there was no intent to deceive the victim and obtain money by deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court, it can be recognized that the Defendant made the victim a false statement to the effect that “the Defendant will enter into a contract for the supply of agricultural cooperatives and the PB products by December 31, 2008. Where the contract is not concluded, the Defendant will return all money.” Thus, the Defendant’s allegation of mistake of facts is rejected.

1) The Defendant recognized all the facts charged in the instant case in the court of the court below, but it became the party to the trial, thereby constituting “F” a coffee sales company (hereinafter “F”).

The representative director of the agency asked the defendant to conclude a contract so that the victim, who is the representative director of the agency, can use the F in NAT to purchase the NAT, and the defendant agreed to receive KRW 60 million from the victim to receive KRW 50 million among them, and in return, F, one of the five points in NAT, did not intend to receive money by deceiving the victim and to receive money.

“.......”