A. The Defendant: (a) knew that M Co., Ltd. (O) has the authority to contract removal works inside Busan J; and (b) concluded the instant removal contract with P Co., Ltd., but in fact M did not have such authority.

At the time of concluding the contract with the victim for the removal of this case, the defendant explained the above circumstances, and received 30 million won from the victim as a construction subsidy to be sent to M, and remitted 20 million won among them to M.

Therefore, the defendant also belongs to M and does not deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact of acquiring the Defendant can be fully recognized.

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

① At the time of concluding the instant demolition subcontract with the victim from the investigation process to the trial in the first instance, the Defendant was also awarded a contract for the removal of the instant case from M, on the ground that, at the time, the original owner of M and J building was promoting the purchase of the J building with the bank loan from M beyond auction, the Defendant entered into the instant removal contract with M by deceiving M.

At the time of concluding a subcontract with the victim, the whole of the above circumstances are explained, and in particular, it is argued that the contractor would be 30,000 won to be given 30,000 won as a construction subsidy and actually paid 20,000 won to M.

② However, on May 27, 201, the Defendant is given I in charge of the practice of the Victim Company (H).