A. The Defendant did not conspired with A to commit the instant crime, and even if he participated in the instant crime, the Defendant’s act is merely an ex post facto aiding and abetting act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail by providing a detailed statement on the Defendant’s assertion and its determination under the title “determination on the Defendant B and the defense counsel’

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the Defendant received prepaid money from an investigative agency without an actual intent to work at a entertainment establishment; and (ii) obtained the money in the name of prepaid by means of locking after closing work within a short period (the prosecutorial examination record (proving evidence No. 307), and (iii) the Defendant exercised from April 4, 2018 to April 5, 2018 as if he would work as an employee for one month after attending the victimJ’s entertainment drinking house and completing the work at the victimJ’s entertainment drinking house; and (iv) the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been aware that the time of the Defendant’s participation was after the completion of the act of defraudation by A; and (iii) if the Defendant did not work at a entertainment establishment, the Defendant’s participation in the crime of fraud cannot be deemed to have been considered to have been committed by the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s participation in the crime of fraud.

B. Sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the Criminal Act.