The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by phoneing to F in China, examined whether or not C’s re-entry could be possible, and then received money from the victim to F to deliver it to F. This case occurred because F did not comply with the Defendant’s promise.

In addition, with respect to the additional deposit of KRW 5 million, the victim, not the defendant, asked the defendant about whether the victim can re-entry into the Republic of Korea before making contact with the defendant, and the defendant again identified the defendant and received more additional money than KRW 5 million after making it necessary to do so.

C There is no reason to block the Defendant from committing the crime by taking advantage of the circumstances in which the Defendant was her relatives with the eighth degree of relationship.

In light of these circumstances, the defendant has no intention to acquire by deception.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, even if the defendant's assertion is based on the defendant's assertion, the defendant confirmed the costs of re-entry into the Republic of Korea from F and demanded 1.5 million won to the victim at the expense. However, the defendant appears to have used 3 million won for himself/herself without sending F to F, and he/she did not notify the victim of the fact that he/she was returned money to F, and the defendant used f for his/her own living costs, and ② the defendant received money from the victim by stating that "the defendant would appoint an attorney-at-law to professionally handle the affairs related to re-entry, and request the consular official to do so."