Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

, however, the defendant.

A. Defendant A (1) did not borrow money from the injured party as a consulting cost for creating an industrial complex, but Defendant A borrowed money for the expenses required to attract investment funds in Hong bean as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as the charge No. 5 through No. 20 of the crime List No. 20 of the attached Table No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, and Defendant A actually promoted the business with the belief of attracting investment funds in Hong bean. As such, Defendant A did not have the intent to obtain money from the injured party at the time of borrowing money from the injured party.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In fact, Defendant B was merely a joint and several surety at the time of borrowing money from the injured party and did not borrow money from the injured party or deceiving the injured party.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment are as follows: (i) Defendant A was promoting the business of lending money from a third party without any particular property at the time of the instant case; (b) Defendant A borrowed money from the injured party as stated in its reasoning; (c) Defendant A did not have any means to repay the said money in the event it is not successful in attracting overseas investments (the victim at the time deemed to have received the loan to raise the said money); and (d) Defendant A borrowed money from the injured party on the condition of paying high-profit profits to the injured party, and even thereafter, Defendant A did not have any means to contribute to attracting overseas investments.