The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have committed a representative director of the Plaintiff Company D (hereinafter “instant company”) with the victim, and was paid KRW 70 million from the victim under the name of G public relations expenses, etc. However, this is only the investment money paid by the victim according to the investment agreement that the victim would take over 30% of the shares of the instant company in which C is the representative director.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case without deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim.

B. Even if the sentencing was found guilty against the Defendant, the sentence imposed by the lower court (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the reasons for an ex officio appeal, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five months at the Busan District Court (No. 2017No. 4357) on February 20, 2018, and appealed against this. However, on April 20, 2018, the court of final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2018Do4492) received a decision to dismiss the appeal and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

The crime of the judgment of the court below against the defendant and the crime of fraud against which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in accordance with the first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, a punishment for the crime of the judgment of the court below shall be sentenced in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the following B.

B. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts may be made. The deception as an act of fraud does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of the juristic act, and the actor’s property disposal act that the actor wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.