Defendant

A is a victim E.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud No. 10. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance) does not have the fact that the Defendant acquired the money as stated in the judgment of the court below. 2) Each of the original decisions of the court of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: the imprisonment of 3 years and 8 months in total: the imprisonment of 10 months in total: the imprisonment of 10 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence against the Defendants of the first instance court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on each appeal filed against Defendant A and the Prosecutor A

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below was rendered separately, and the Defendant A and the Prosecutor filed an appeal against the first judgment of the court of first instance, respectively, and this court made a decision to concurrently deliberate on each of the above appeals cases. The judgment of the court below is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus a single sentence is to be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, in this regard, the part against Defendant A and the second judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any further.

B. Despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant A still has been subject to the judgment of this court, so the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and in particular, according to the statement made by the J in the investigative agency, the J reported the advertisement of loans around August 201 and started to find it to the office of the defendant in Incheon. From October 201 to August 2012, the J was under the defendant's bottom from around October 201 to August 201, in the first instance judgment, arranged a false loan to AZ, such as the statement No. 10, 150,000 won per case, in the order of the list I of crimes in the attached Form.