A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, Jul. 8, 2018) Of the instant facts charged, the part of the facts charged No. 2018 High Order No. 82 is only the sole crime of Defendant B, and there was no conspiracy

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's invitation to the facts charged in this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (8 months of imprisonment and 4 months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant’s conspiracy as to the fraud No. 82 of the upper end of 2018 can be sufficiently recognized.

① The instant gallon implementation project was originally carried out by the Defendant along with J, and when the Defendant received money from the injured party, the Defendant entered into a contract with J on behalf of the Defendant, instead of the Defendant.

However, even after the existence of the Defendant, the Defendant sought appraisal costs of KRW 25 million to receive appraisal in order to obtain a loan as security, and the J attempted not to operate a partnership with the Defendant with the Defendant and thus, it appears that the Defendant did not leave, but the Defendant and B did not play a leading role in the business. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not play a leading role in the business, it is recognized that the Defendant was promoting the business of this case even around the time of this case.

② The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, consistently stated that “the Defendant was first required to pay money in relation to the instant gallonian implementation project” from the Defendant.

After one month, he paid two times.

The purport is that “B made a statement,” and that “B did not hear the statement that he would have paid a full payment with detailed talks or doubles about the business.”