The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any intention to mislead the victim of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles by granting the right to operate a restaurant to the victim AU, or by deceiving 30 million won from the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not required under the relevant legal principles as co-offenders who jointly process two or more crimes, but are combined with the intent to realize the crime through the joint processing of the crimes. If the combination of the intent is made in a successive or secret manner through the conspiracy, a public contest relationship is established, and even those who do not directly participate in the act of the crime, are held liable as co-principals for other co-principals. Therefore, even if the method of deception was not clearly known (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). In addition, even if the possibility of the occurrence of the crime was uncertain, the public conspiracy cannot be established as dolusive fraud, which is acceptable in light of the above legal principles, and where the defendant denies the criminal intent with the conspiracy, the defendant did not lawfully establish the right of fraud by taking into account the subjective elements of the crime by taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below as a crime of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do21614, supra.).