A. Defendants (1) misunderstanding of the facts (Defendant A) merely delivered the horses from Defendant B to Defendant Q Q through R, and there was no conspiracy to commit fraud against Defendants B, C, and Q.

(2) The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendants (i) to the punishment that the court below sentenced to the defendants (ii) to the 8-month imprisonment, (ii) to the 1-year imprisonment, and (iii) to the defendant C is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the lower court.

The lower court did not accept the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

(2) In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant conspiredd to commit fraud against B, C and the victim Q.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① The victim Q made a statement at the investigative agency to the effect that, through R, the Defendant told him/her to the effect that “if he/she was through B having broad growth and many school-related persons, he/she could have his/her father as a J high school school education teacher, so he/she could have his/her father be employed as a teacher for the said high school education.” (2) In addition, the victim Q made a statement at the investigative agency to the effect that “A himself/herself shall have a KRW 100 million to the Defendant and B at the same time with the Defendant, but the statement to the effect that “the Defendant confirmed the said money from B” was that “the Defendant confirmed the said money on his/her job” (2:577 pages of evidence record). ③ The Plaintiff’s horse delivered the Defendant’s horse to the victim Q may have the Defendant employ KRW 100 million as a teacher even before introducing B to him/her.

The lower court stated that it was “(2)” (Evidence No. 2.