Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six years and for four years, respectively.

A. Defendant A1) In relation to the fraud of the victim of mistake of fact-finding, Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A1”) borrowed money from AD, not V, and most of the money was repaid. (2) In consideration of the fact that K did not have any particular criminal history except for the previous conviction of unfair sentencing, and that K withdraws complaint and the Defendant’s health is not good, the lower court’s imprisonment (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (Fraud) in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) said that Defendant B “A knows that female president is suitable and I is aware of the fact,” but this is a talk that Defendant A had received money from the victim.

Defendant

At the request of A to lend the passbook, it was merely a loan to the passbook, and it was not known that it was used for fraud.

Therefore, Defendant B did not commit fraud in collusion with Defendant A and did not commit fraud and did not intend to commit fraud.

B) In light of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.), gasoline is rootsd on one’s body in one’s own mind. In this case, the victim was immediately before the outside of the office and the victim was unable to witness this site. 2) The Defendant’s imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the victim was against unreasonable sentencing, and that the Defendant was the first offender.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant A1, Defendant A requested a policeman V and AD to borrow money on February 2, 2013, prepared a loan certificate with V as a creditor, AD stated that Defendant A lent money to Non-Defendant A, and the amount repaid by Defendant A to Defendant A was money separate from the loan amount in this case.

Thus, the defendant A, who was delivered money to the defendant A by lending money from AD, obtained money from V.