Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Defendant

B.

A. There is no fact that the victim received a request from the victim for sale of precious metal, such as the entries in the facts charged of this case, and the victim only made a transaction with the defendant A and did not have any direct transaction with the defendant B.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants of all the charges of this case on the premise that the Defendants were requested to sell precious metal products as above was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, Defendant B: fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendants conspired and embezzled the sales proceeds of precious metals requested by the victim as stated in the instant facts charged can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged is justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the Defendants.

On August 11, 2008, the Defendants prepared a certificate of storage of precious metals with a total of eight points, including the amount equivalent to 18 million won in market price, 20 million won in the Emond market price, 20 million won in the Emond 14 capitals in the instant facts charged, 5 million won in the market price, and the amount equivalent to 5 million won in the natural dust 500,000 won in the market price, and 11 million won in the natural dust 50,000 won in the market.

The defendants claim that the 4 points other than the 4 points stated in the facts charged of this case among the precious metals of 8 points stated in the above goods storage certificate are entrusted for sale, but the 4 points stated in the facts charged of this case did not receive any request for sale, and the above goods storage certificate is the victim.