The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the conflicting conclusions between the first instance and the second instance court with respect to the mistake of facts in this case's litigation fraud, the above civil litigation was instituted because it did not receive a brokerage commission from D, and the defendant's employee F's perjury affected the above civil litigation, etc., the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's crime of fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can fully recognize the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The crime of fraud in the instant case against the allegation of unfair sentencing is highly likely to be subject to criticism by itself.

However, the defendant did not execute the civil judgment based on the civil judgment, and when the amount of the civil judgment was deposited by the victim after the civil judgment became final and conclusive, the defendant also deposited the amount of damage for the victim in relation to this case, and the damage seems to have been restored.

Until this case, the employee of the Defendant’s operating office was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months for perjury in the process of civil trial, and the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 7 million won by perjury in the relevant perjury criminal trial. The instant case and the Defendant’s perjury case are a series of disputes in substance.

The defendant has no criminal records other than those sentenced to a fine for perjury and a violation of the Housing Construction Promotion Act in 197.

In addition, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, family relationship, etc.