A. According to factual misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the legal principles (for the Defendants), Defendant A’s statement, etc., the “Seoul Emart” was prohibited from sub-lease at the time of the victim K’s sub-lease contract, and its management status was not good, and the “Council Emart” also was difficult to start business without the relationship between Defendant A’s borrowing of KRW 100 million, the Defendants conspired to receive the security deposit from the damaged party.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B and C on the whole, and acquitted Defendant A on the grounds is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant A was aware that the sub-lease contract of the “Monyang” that was concluded with the victim was a primary impossibility, and that Defendant A deceptiond the victim in order to repay his/her obligation even though he/she had sufficiently known the financial status of his/her parliamentary Mon, the punishment of the lower judgment (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court acquitted Defendant B and C of each of the facts charged, and acquitted Defendant A of the part concerning KRW 20 million among the facts charged against Defendant A.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the unfair argument of sentencing, determines the sentencing.