1. The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

2. The defendant is not guilty. 3. The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the guilty portion of the lower judgment by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant received KRW 90 million from the Victim F in early April 2014 from the Defendant, on the grounds that he had the intent and capacity to establish G member stores at major discount stores, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the part of the judgment of not guilty among the judgment of the court below on the erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant, despite deceiving the victim C by deceiving the victim C and receiving five million won as the down payment of G franchise store even though he did not have the intent and ability to establish G franchise store on July 2013, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts otherwise. 2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the judgment of the court of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too un

2. Determination

A. On June 3, 2011, the Defendant: (a) was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months with labor for an indecent act by force in the Jinwon District Court’s Jinwon Branch on the charge of indecent act by force; and (b) completed the execution of the sentence on June 6, 2012. On April 4, 2014, the Defendant: (c) rendered a judgment on the charge of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the charge of the Defendant’s mistake of facts; and (d) completed the enforcement of the sentence on the Ekbook located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (d) H (hereinafter “G head office”).

In introducing himself as the head of the Busan, Ulsan, and the Namnam branch, he made a false statement to the effect that "B would allow him to occupy the G merchant down payment and the costs of IEM sales at the IEmsan store on the basis of the total amount of KRW 100 million."

However, in fact, the G head office did not delegate the right to enter into a franchise store contract or the right to receive down payment to the Defendant, who is the head office, and since G chain store has to enter into a contract with the G head office to store in the large retailer, the Defendant was the victim.