The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The premium amount to be paid by the Defendant by mistake of fact to the victim is not KRW 30 million, but KRW 20 million, among which the Defendant paid KRW 9.5 million for the victim’s wages, etc., on behalf of the victim, the Defendant paid KRW 10.5 million for the victim. The remainder of KRW 10.5 million, which the Defendant paid to G through the victim’s account, deducted the final agreement of KRW 2 million from the cash amount of KRW 15 million, which was paid to G with the cash amount of KRW 13 million, is set off against the remainder of KRW 13 million, which was agreed upon by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant by deceiving the victim, did not have acquired pecuniary profits.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on December 10, 2015 to six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to fraud, etc. from the Daejeon District Court’s Incheon Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court on December 10, 2015. On December 18, 2015, the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 18, 2015. Since the above crime and the crime in the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive, are in the relation of concurrent crimes by a group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a punishment for the crime in the judgment of the court below is determined in consideration of equity and cases where

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant and the victim did not prepare for each other in writing, but it is sufficiently recognized that they agreed to pay 30 million won as premium for the instant car page, while the victim was in a state of need for money at the time, thereby making it possible to pay 40 million won as premium.