Of the facts charged by the court below, Defendant B

A. 1) As to the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants conspired to make a false statement to the victim C, and they did not defraud 1 million won from the above victim (fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) (2) The sentence (2 years of suspended execution in four months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court of first instance against the Defendant B is too unreasonable.

(F) 2.2

In regard to the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the punishment (one million won of fine) imposed by the court of the second instance on the defendant B is too unreasonable.

(F) On February 2, 200, the judgment of the court below against Defendant B was rendered and the above Defendant appealed each of the judgment of the court below, and the court decided that the two appeals case will be reviewed together.

However, the crime of the judgment of the court of first instance against the above defendant is one of the concurrent crimes between fraud, etc. which became final and conclusive on June 25, 2014 and fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2015, and Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Since the crime of the court of first instance and the crime of the court of second instance committed after the final and conclusive judgment cannot be a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the crime of the judgment of the court of first instance and the crime of the court of second instance must be sentenced separately for

Ultimately, the consolidated trial against the above defendant does not constitute grounds for ex officio destruction.

3. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles concerning the judgment of the first instance court

A. On January 2013, the Defendants in the facts charged of the first instance judgment request the amount of KRW 10 million from 2 billion to 3 billion from 2 billion to 10 billion from 2 billion from 2 billion from 200 billion from 200 billion from 10 billion from 200 billion from 10 billion from 200 billion from 20 billion from 20 billion from 3 billion from 200 billion from 1 million from 2013

‘False speech' was made.

However, in fact, even if the Defendants received money from the victim as the starting money, they did not have the intention or ability to provide financing.

The Defendants acted in collusion with the victim.