The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant explained to C about performance contract guarantee insurance with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) and purchased a guaranteed insurance policy with C as a joint guarantor with C’s consent.

The defendant did not forge or use the C's application file for insurance, nor did he deceiving the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and did not acquire the pecuniary profits equivalent to KRW 132 million by purchasing the guarantee insurance policy.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Even if the sentencing was found to be guilty, the sentence imposed by the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 132 million of deposit money by using the file of a written application for insurance coverage by C and by deceiving a person in charge of subscription to Seoul Guarantee Insurance.

Therefore, the court below is just in finding guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the defendant, which affected the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

① Company B, the representative director of which is the Defendant, is a joint guarantor under the performance guarantee insurance contract concluded with Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. with the Defendant as the insured. C consistently states that there is no consent from the investigative agency to the joint guarantor for the said guarantee insurance contract, and that there is credibility in the statement made by the Defendant to the court of first instance (see, e.g., the above statement made by the Defendant).

The lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous.

there are special circumstances or conditions to consider.