The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below convicting Defendant 1 of mistake of facts is erroneous as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (A) Each part of the crime of fraud and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act regarding KRW 20 million and KRW 5 million, which was received from J, is delivered to the victim C, and there is no fact that the Defendant, who was in custody of KRW 18 million, has been consumed.

In addition, the fact that the defendant received KRW 2 million from the victim and used it is true that the defendant received KRW 2 million from the victim, but it is not delivered under the pretext of deceiving the victim and soliciting investigative agencies to work in connection with the criminal case of the victim.

Dor, the defendant received KRW 5 million from M in order to deliver it to the wife of the victim, and he did so with the victim's permission, and paid it again to M with the victim's living expenses, and there was no fact that the defendant intended to use the above money for solicitation of the victim to investigation agencies.

B) The Defendant did not receive KRW 3.5 million from N around June 7, 201, on the part of the charge of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act with respect to KRW 3.5 million. N is a person who gets a signboard within the oil station operated by the Defendant, and the Defendant made a false statement with respect to the defect of the Defendant, i.e., unfolding the Defendant. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 28.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the circumstances at the time of the victim C’s mistake of facts (not guilty part), even if the victim did not have made a full trust of the Defendant, it was delivered KRW 3,50,000 to the Defendant due to the Defendant’s belief and mistake. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous. 2).