The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the sentencing) or misunderstanding of the legal principles, in order to operate a business jointly with Defendant B, the Defendant was actually promoting a lease agreement on the first floor and the first floor above the ground in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H Building (hereinafter “instant building”) recorded in the facts charged of the instant case, and, among which they were doing so, became the victim for the first time while concluding a sublease agreement on the instant facts charged.

The Defendant did not know at all whether Defendant B had contacted the victim before entering into a sub-lease contract, and did not have conspired to do so.

In light of the process before and after the conclusion of a contract, there was a misunderstanding to some extent due to unclear communication between the defendant, etc. and the victim, and the defendant et al. conspired to mislead the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine), even though the Defendant endeavored to enter into a lease agreement before entering into a sub-lease agreement with the victim, the conclusion of the lease agreement ultimately did not result in the misunderstanding of the Defendant A.

The defendant may know well that the damaged person did not enter into a lease contract.

It was believed that there was belief.

The defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have any intention to obtain money by taking advantage of the victim's site condition.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.