A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is merely an employee in compliance with D’s instructions, and there is no authority to issue a letter of credit or to decide on the return of the amount in custody under a contract with C.

In this case, there is no distribution and degree of monetary profit which appears when a public offering relationship comes into existence.

The defendant is not guilty of deceiving C and 200 million won in collusion with D.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on public offering or deception of facts, thereby finding guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted the judgment of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, worked as a full-time employee of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) that D actually operated, and agreed between D and D to receive part of the profits when the Defendant orders the instant company to operate a business on behalf of the instant company. Prior to the instant case, the Defendant and D, upon G’s request, opened a letter of credit related to H’s clothes import, instead of several companies, such as the instant company operated by G under the name of D, but G was liable for the debt amounting to KRW 00,000,000.

In this regard, since the person who introduced G to D was the defendant, the defendant had to recover the damage inflicted on the company of this case, etc., and it seems that D had urged the defendant to do so.

A relatively high credibility is recognized as an employee of the instant company.

According to L's statements at the police stage, D, before receiving 200 million won of contract deposit related to the issuance of L/C from the victim C, shall be the employees including the defendant.