All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The defendant shall receive 100,000,000 won from the applicant for compensation by deceit.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) At the time of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts regarding the fraud against the victim E, the Defendant did not have any kind of attorney-at-law, and the victim E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) provided an explanation on the investment agreement of the Daejeon Gtel construction project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) from the Defendant, and made an investment in K (hereinafter referred to as the “instant executor”) for the purpose of performing civil engineering works during the said construction.

Therefore, the defendant did not intend to acquire money by deceiving E.

(2) The injured party L (L) also sought an explanation from the Defendant on the investment agreement of the instant project and made an investment in the instant executor for the purpose of complying with the electrical construction during the instant construction.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had an intention to acquire money by deceiving L by deceiving L.

B. The Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In full view of the evidence and records and arguments duly adopted and examined by the court below to determine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts regarding E, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted as the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts as to E among the facts charged in the instant case, including the criminal intent of deception, since the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is not accepted.

E stated in the court below that “At the beginning, the Defendant introduced the Defendant as an attorney-at-law and made several statements to the effect that the Defendant ought to enter the court,” and that there was no agreement prior to giving money, or there was no explanation about the content of the agreement, and around March 2012, approximately one year after the date, the Defendant received the investment agreement by mail.”

The event of this case is held.