The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On January 19, 2012, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced the Defendant and D to 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime that he/she acquired a total of KRW 725 million from the victims in collusion with the Defendant and D on January 19, 2012 (the above court 201Gohap334), and the above judgment became final and conclusive through the appellate court. Although the Defendant was an investment in money from the victims due to the method of misrepresenting the Cheongdaedae, the Defendant was merely the fact that he/she acted in good offices or delivers money.

Since the defendant was not directly involved in deception, the defendant should be pronounced not guilty.

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

2. Determination

A. (i) As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the lower court determined as follows on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

① The victims stated consistently that “The Defendant is raising a lot of money to the victims while doing work in which all the circumstances of the government have been in possession of secret books and money for the use of secret books.” In introducing F to the victims, the Defendant stated consistently that “F would be working at a social organization operated by Cheongdae and the Minister in a secret manner.”

② The Defendant and F demanded expenses for activities to the victims, and the victims remitted total of KRW 35 million to the Defendant’s wife N account from April 21, 2008 to March 30.

According to this, according to each legal statement, etc. at the court below of the case of the victims of KRW 725 million by deceiving victims in collusion with D and F, it is recognized that KRW 580 million out of the amount of damage was delivered in the manner of creating a passbook of a national bank that was deposited in an amount equivalent to the above amount on April 18, 2008 (see, e.g., the court records85,86,95, 95, 120, 121, 130, etc.). Accordingly, the defendant's assertion that the facts charged are not clear in relation to this part is acceptable.