The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The following facts are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant appears to have symptoms of the merger of urology with the aged, etc.; (c) the Defendant paid the victim KRW 10 million in the investigation process under the pretext of damage compensation; and (d) deposited additional KRW 30 million in the lower court; and (c) the Defendant agreed with the victim; and (d) the instant crime constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of fraud finalized on May 8, 2010 by the judgment and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the sentence should be determined in consideration of equity with the case where the said judgment becomes final and conclusive.

However, the crime of this case is committed by false statements that the defendant did not have the ability to decide on the right to operate the mar restaurant at the construction site of a nuclear power plant in the state of the report-making nuclear power plant, and that the victim would be able to reverse the conclusion of the above mar restaurant contract as if he had the ability to reverse the conclusion of the contract with the above marbly concluded by the victim, and that he would receive money exceeding KRW 100 million on several occasions for a period exceeding one year, and the nature of the crime is not good. The court below sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence by taking into account the maximum favorable circumstances as mentioned above, and there is no change of circumstances to consider the sentencing after the decision of the court below was made to the trial. Rather, in light of the contents of the petition submitted on September 13, 2012, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance, it is doubtful whether the agreement at the court of first instance was due to the genuine will of the victim, and there are other conditions on the defendant's age, character and behavior.