The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On February 20, 2013, the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) of the victim of mistake of facts was already aware of the fact that before notifying the Defendant of the fact that the Defendant’s E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) is converted into an exclusive insurance agency agreement entered into with the victimized company, that “the Defendant transfers the business of the insurance agency to F, etc., and allows the Defendant to use the 17th floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building (hereinafter “instant office”).

Therefore, even though the defendant used the office of this case to F, etc. on December 19, 2013, it cannot be deemed that the damaged company was deceiving because it did not notify such fact to F, etc., and the defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances and facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant knew at the office of this case that the company of this case is exclusively engaged in the business of the victimized company, but is able to receive a considerable amount of rent support from the victimized company. Thus, the defendant should have notified the victimized company of the fact that the office of this case was unable to be used for the purpose of the contract of the victimized company immediately after the victimized company was notified of the fact that the office of this case was converted into the exclusive contract. It did not notify the victimized company of the fact that the office of this case was unable to be used for the purpose of the contract

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that it was guilty of the facts charged in this case, and there is a mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.