B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

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

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants to the prosecutor (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, and Defendant B: the above sentence) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case with respect to Defendant A is highly likely to be committed in light of the following: (a) the Defendant acquired a non-performing company by formally representing the victims; (b) purchased a vehicle in the name of the victims or obtained a loan from them; (c) obtained a vehicle from the victims under the name of the victims, or acquired the proceeds by using a credit card or mobile phone in the name of the victims for investment money; and (d) the method of committing the crime is very planned and intelligent; and (e) the total amount of damage exceeds KRW 400 million, and is a large amount exceeding 40 million.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not endeavor to recover damage or to agree with the victim.

However, the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the crimes in this case and reflected against the Defendant, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence against the Defendant, taking into account all the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant as seen earlier, and that the amount of the judgment does not seem to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, and in light of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relation, motive, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unfeasible to the Defendant, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

B. We also examine Defendant B and the Prosecutor’s arguments regarding Defendant B.

In the first instance, the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected against the Defendant, and that the Defendant should consider the equity in the case of the judgment at the same time with the final judgment of fraud on January 22, 2016, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant against the victim P.