Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B As to the crimes of Nos. 1 and 3 in its holding, 8 months of imprisonment.

A. There is no fact that the Defendants conspired in collusion with the victim to acquire money from the victim, such as in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio, Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months on November 26, 2010, and imprisonment with prison labor for two years on April 29, 201 with prison labor for a probation of the Suwon District Court in Sungnam branch, which became final and conclusive on April 29, 201. The crimes of Articles 1 and 3 as stated in the judgment of the court below and the crime of fraud for which the above judgment becomes final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Since the crime of Article 2 as stated in the judgment becomes final and conclusive after the end of the crime at the market price, a separate punishment should be determined for the crimes of Articles 1 and 3

Nevertheless, since all of the crimes in the judgment of the court below are deemed concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the part on Defendant B among the judgment below cannot be maintained.

However, among the judgment of the court below, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the reason for the above ex officio reversal.

B. In full view of the following circumstances which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendants’ assertion of mistake, the Defendants can be recognized as having acquired money from the victims as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, so the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

(1) Determination on public offering relations (1) The public offering is not a legally required type of punishment, and is only a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime by jointly processing the crime, and even if there was no overall mother process, there is a number of persons.