All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud against the victim of mistake of facts C, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant did not have the right to give orders to the victim C to take the removal work but could have deceiving the above victim as if he had such authority, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence (two years of suspended sentence in June) sentenced by the court below of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence) is too uneasible and thus unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, in fact, did not have the authority to select the authority to conclude a contract for the removal of the said construction site or the company that was friendly with L’s representative director of the H company which promoted the reconstruction construction of I and two parcels of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the intention to obtain money from the victim C by making a false statement that he would give a subcontract for the removal of the said construction site.

On February 2, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “H company will take charge of reconstruction works in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, but will allow H company to take charge of the removal of 45 million won on the surface.”

The Defendant received promissory notes worth KRW 11.6 million from the victim C on February 20, 2010, and around March 8, 2010, transferred KRW 20 million to a corporate bank account under the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendant’s legal statement; (b) the witness C’s partial statement; (c) the witness L’s legal statement; (d) the prosecution examination protocol against the Defendant; and (e) the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant.