A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

A. The Defendant, as to the fraud related to F University construction, concluded a construction contract with X, and X entered into a subcontract with the victims of the instant case.

Therefore, since the defendant did not have concluded a contract for construction directly with the victims of this case, there is no fact of deceiving the victims of this case.

Since the Defendant paid KRW 300 million as the down payment to a school juristic person G (hereinafter referred to as “G”), the Defendant did not intend to pay the instant construction cost related to the acquisition of the said school juristic person.

In addition, it was possible to receive the return of 200 million won paid for the expenses related to the right to sell three apartment bonds received from P, and there was sufficient ability to pay the construction cost in consideration of the defendant's property status, etc.

B. A person who deceivings victims of misconceptions about the fraud regarding the recruitment of teachers and staff is N, and the defendant did not participate therein.

(c)

The facts charged of this case by misapprehending the legal principles on the fraud related to the employment of teachers and staff is composed of indirect principals who committed a crime using N, but since N constitutes a person who had intent to commit the above fraud, the defendant cannot commit the crime in the form of indirect principal offender.

(d)

Since the court below made an agreement with the victims or deposited the amount of damage when the sentencing was unfair, the punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Determination of the lower court on the assertion of mistake as to the fraud related to F University construction 1) The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower judgment. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the construction cost to the victims.