2. In the lower court’s determination, the Defendants agreed with H and K, the victim of the instant crime, and the Defendants did not want to punish the Defendants, and the Defendants did not have any record of criminal punishment for the same type of fraud, and did not have any record of criminal punishment other than fines for other crimes, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants asserted that the joint crime of this case by the Defendants, along with the co-principal C, had the victim H by deceiving the above victim under the name of investment and loan money, as if the development of the land located in ethic City I was conducted in ethic City, together with the Defendants, as co-principal C, was done, and that the damage amount is considerable, the Defendants conspired from the beginning that they did not explicitly induce the victim H, but at the time they were sufficiently capable of self-sufficiency at that time. However, the Defendants asserted that ① the Defendants did not know at any time to obtain various authorizations and permissions necessary for the development of the above I land and did not fully secure the right to access to the above I land, but received KRW 10 million from the victim. ② Defendant A was paid the proceeds of the investment, ② Defendant A was discussed and decided with Defendant B and C, and Defendant A stated that “All the terms and conditions of all the contracts were discussed at first to receive KRW 100 million, ③ The Defendants did not accept the above principal of the investment until five years have passed since the judgment below.

Defendant .