The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant received a remittance of KRW 10 million from G around August 29, 2014, as stated in Article 2015Da633 of the lower judgment’s judgment, as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime, but there was no intention to defraud the Defendant at the time.

Luxembourg The fact that around December 21, 2011, the Defendant had C transfer KRW 60 million to a bank account of AX as stated in the crime No. 2015Kadan682 of the judgment of the court below, but the Defendant did not obtain any property profit in relation to it, and there was no intention to acquire it.

Referencely, the defendant received 2910,000 won from the Z as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, but there was no deception that the defendant would accept the right of sale by proxy, and there was no intention of fraudulentation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) The lower court’s determination of the assertion of mistake of facts as to (i) the fraud described in Article 2015da633 of the Criminal Act, which was duly adopted and investigated by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant: (i) the Defendant, at the time, engaged in the relevant business so that a food business entity operated by AE (mutual name “AD”) may enter into a contract for the supply of food to the Agricultural Cooperatives Food and Food Safety Institute; (ii) the conclusion of the contract was not conclusive; and (iii) there was no ground to ensure the Defendant’s production and supply of stuffs to the said researcher or the Agricultural Cooperatives; (ii) the Defendant was unable to support the above supply business that the Defendant prepared, and eventually suspended the pertinent business; and in particular, there was no discussion on the Research Institute’s side and the bus stuffs (Evidence No. 48 and 49 of the evidence record); and (iii) the Defendant had the said employee directly posted to the victim.