1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than six months for the crimes set forth in the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles about the fraud of the victim N, the Ludio managed and operated the Ludio as owned by B.

The defendant has not committed this part of the fraud in collusion with B.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B) With respect to the fraud of the victim T, this part of the fraud crime is the sole crime of C, and the Defendant has not conspiredd with C and the fraud. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged in violation of the Labor Standards Act, which is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and operated for three months after acquiring W (hereinafter “W”) from U, but the Defendant again transferred W to U on the condition that the Defendant is liable for U for all obligations incurred during the business period.

Therefore, even though X-Y wages shall be held responsible for U, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below finding guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. (B) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant conspired with B as stated in this part of the facts charged and acquired 5 million won from the victim is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The victim entered into the instant lease agreement at the location of the Defendant, B, and the victim together.

from the defendant.