Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty part against Defendant B and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

B. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A misunderstanding the fact that Defendant A received KRW 5 million from G on May 2, 2007 at the cost of electrical construction and brought about KRW 30 million out of the amount of KRW 30 million to Defendant B at the cost of electrical construction. Defendant B bears the obligation of KRW 5 million to Defendant A as a repayment. The receipt of KRW 5 million from G around November 16, 2010 from November 16, 201 is not the cost of electrical construction, but the personal borrowing is not the cost of electrical construction. Defendant A did not have obtained money by deceiving Defendant A and did not have any intent to commit fraud.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1’s misunderstanding of the facts (the guilty portion of Defendant B’s 1 judgment) (hereinafter “F”) Defendant B registered F Co., Ltd. as a collaborative company upon the request of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) to register as a collaborative company, and only received KRW 30 million at that expense, and there was no deception by G.

In addition, it was asked to recommend F to the executive officers, etc. of the lot group to give orders for F to the executives, etc., and the actual lot group's solicitation was made to the executive officers. On December 26, 2007, as to the fraud of KRW 1 million on December 26, 2007, there was no fact that Defendant B requested it, and there was no fact that Defendant B received it directly or the I approved it on behalf of Defendant B.

2) The sentence of the lower court (No. 1 and No. 2 of the lower court’s judgment): The sentence of the lower court (No. 1: 2 years of suspended sentence in October; 2 years of suspended sentence in June: 1 year of suspended sentence and 200 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment (1) on the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake on May 22, 2007 as to the assertion of mistake on the facts, Defendant A would allow the victim F’s representative director G to have the electrical construction work on the construction site conducted on the part of the victim F’s representative G, which would be worth KRW 30 million.