The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) introduced the victim to B; (b) attempted to enter into an entrusted operation contract for a restaurant; and (c) did not deceiving the victim; and (d) did not take part in B’s fraud.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below. ① Although the defendant was not a regular E employee at the time of the contract of this case, the defendant was able to provide E with the gathering of earth and stones (in the case of regular Eup/Myeon, Haan-gun) and had the victim take charge of the general affairs of the field where the gathering of earth and stones is conducted, since it was around July 2010, the defendant did not appear to have introduced the victim B regardless of the project. ② When the victim and E participated as a witness at the time of concluding the agreement on the entrusted operation of the restaurant, the victim and K participated in the preparation of the agreement on the entrusted operation of the restaurant, and the victim and K participated in the preparation of the agreement on the entrusted operation of the restaurant, the defendant and the victim did not fully recognize that the victim would not be able to provide the right to operate the restaurant normally, and it was recognized that they did not receive the above information from the victim and paid the entrusted operation deposit under the name of the victim.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that there is no money from B as a referral fee for the victim and L. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, including the witness J and U.S. witness's written testimony, the defendant is the defendant.