The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant, on behalf of the victim, only caused the death of the victim, and there was no fact that his family would have been frightened or deceiving the victim.

2) The Defendant received KRW 9,50,000 (No. 4,6,8,12,12, 18, 20, 24, and 31) in return for the performance or surrender of the contract, and did not receive the remainder from the injured party.

3) Criminal sight table No. 350 million won No. 180 million won was paid directly by the victim to F under the pretext of causing harm to the other's living together with his/her father, and there was no defendant's participation in this regard. The defendant received only KRW 20 million from F, who is not the victim, under the pretext of introduction.

4) No. 21 of the crime sight table was directly paid by the victim to I, irrespective of the Defendant, in return for the performance of the contract.

5) Even if the Defendant received money and valuables from the injured party under the pretext of the indecent act, such as the performance of the contract, it is within the scope that can be accepted under the social norms, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant deceivings the injured party to acquire the property.

6) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is based on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts. In a case where the executor committed an act in general and intangible manner, which is conducted within the ordinary scope according to the intent of the requester, with the payment of remuneration or expenses within the ordinary scope, and objectively conducted in the unlimited industry, the person who requested the performance of the contract, etc. was not required or promised to do so.

Even a deceptive act can not be considered as a deceptive act.

However, whether or not the executor has committed an act without delay as the executor has actually promised or not, and as a result, the act without delay.