The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in only the grounds for appeal alleged by the defense counsel of the defendant on the third trial date of the trial of the court of the first instance, and the grounds for appeal as stated in the grounds for appeal as of October 13, 2014, which the defendant directly submitted, were completely withdrawn.

1) misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant’s 5 million won that the Defendant received from the victim E (hereinafter “instant damages claim case”) as indicated in the lower judgment.

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant acquired the said money under the pretext of the case expenses for the appraiser’s request for a child support trial (hereinafter “instant claim for child support”) was made by the attorney-at-law in violation of the Attorney-at-law Act, and the Defendant prepared a written request for a child support trial, written correction, etc. after review by C before C dies on April 17, 2012. After C died, the Defendant notified E of the fact and recommended other attorneys to appoint another attorney-at-law after E’s death, and thereafter, the lower court was only the fact that the Defendant participated in the conciliation procedure upon E’s request.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant dealt with legal affairs in return for money in the case of claiming child support of this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service, 80 hours of collection, 13950,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court regarding fraud, the lower court determined that the Defendant could recognize the fact of deceiving E and deceiving 5 million won. (A) E from the prosecution to the court below.