The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) was merely the so-called president as the representative in the name of G Co., Ltd., and there was no conspiracy or participation in the instant fraud crime by J or B, the vice president of the said company, who was the actual operator of the said company.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s decision that the lower court declared the Defendant to be exempted from punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (former H Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “instant company”); and B is the vice president of the said company.

On the other hand, Suwon-si I building is in the name of the above company, and it was in the state of security trust in one asset trust (one corporation prior to the change).

The Defendant and B, when operating the above company B with J, etc., who is the husband of the above company B, thought that the above company would have been able to use the above company's wages as funds for the management of the company by receiving the lease deposit from the lessee of the I building due to financial difficulties, such as delayed payment of the workers' wages, and the cancellation of the registration of the trust was impossible unless the trust is deposited in one set of trust deposits. Therefore, the Defendant and B did not notify the lessee of this fact by the outstanding payment date, but did not notify the lessee of this fact, and made the cancellation of

It was attempted to acquire the lease deposit by deception.

In collusion with B on April 2, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim L with respect to No. 1323 at the real estate brokerage office operated by K in the I building on April 2, 2014, and acquired the deposit money equivalent to KRW 54 million from the victim L.

B. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal in the lower court, but the lower court is merely the name of the representative director.