Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts about fraud was received KRW 200 million from the victim. However, this is not a loan to the entire use of the project of this case, as in the facts charged, with a specific loan only for the purpose of deposit with the lending company, but it is actually used for the purpose of carrying out the project of this case.

Therefore, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged concerning the fraud by misunderstanding the fact, although Defendant A was not guilty of deceiving the victim and of deception.

2) The lower court’s punishment (one year and six months) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) details of the instant crime of this case’s assertion of sentencing and the plan to pay damages; and (b) the details of the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the following: Defendant B’s passive participation only in the instant crime; Defendant B’s efforts to agree with the victims; and Defendant B’s confessions during the first instance trial.

(c)

In full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant C’s statement asserting that the alteration of a private document was false; and (b) Defendant C’s partial statement and circumstantial facts, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted Defendant C on the charge of the alteration of the “certificate of KRW 100 million”. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence (400 million won) against Defendant C, which was improper in sentencing, is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts regarding the fraud, the lower court can fully recognize the facts that Defendant A conspiredd the victim at the time of receiving transfer of KRW 200 million and the fact that Defendant A had the intent to commit fraud.