Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, and imprisonment for one year and two months, respectively.

A. According to the relevant evidence of the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts against Defendant A (2012 high-class 986 case), the court below found that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B to commit each construction contract under the name of AI Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AI”), and acquired the construction cost by deceiving the victims who are the contractor of the construction work, but the court below acquitted the victims of each charge. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentencing of each of the lower courts on Defendant B’s inappropriate sentencing on Defendant B (the first instance judgment: the imprisonment of August and the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of six months) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

B. Defendant A (1) In collusion with Defendant B, the lower court found Defendant A to be guilty of all the charges of this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that there was no fact that the Defendant acquired a lease deposit by deceiving the victim AA, forged a lease contract under X, and used the document. As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Even if it is not an unreasonable sentencing decision, the sentencing of the first instance judgment against the Defendant (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The sentencing of each court below on Defendant B (unfair form of punishment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination of ex officio, the court of original judgment, Nos. 1 and 2 sentenced Defendant B to a judgment after completing separate hearings on each of the above judgments. Defendant B and the prosecutor filed each appeal on each of the above judgments, and the court of original instance decided to hold concurrent hearings on each of the above appeals. The first and second offenses against Defendant B are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and they are a single sentence within the scope of punishment increased by concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.