A. In relation to the crime of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant invested money with A and F to operate a game room as a joint business owner, and even though A had not allowed A to make a statement as if it was an actual business owner, the lower court which recognized this part of the facts charged and convicted the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted and examined the allegation of mistake of facts as follows: (i) at the time of the third examination by the prosecution on March 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) reversed the statement that “the actual business owner of the game of this case is the Defendant and the Defendant engaged in the same business with F; (b) the Defendant would have received KRW 2 million monthly from the Defendant while serving as an employee; (c) as the date on which the game room was controlled, the Defendant was sent to the game room and her actual business owner. If the Defendant was sent to B and her employee, the lower court instructed the O to make a false statement as if theO was a scar; (d) theO was not inside the bar and the Defendant’s team; and (e) at the time of the third examination by the prosecution, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant was present at the prosecutor’s office that he would have made a false statement to the Defendant’s last 1, 2000 won.”