Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, for six months and for six months, for each of the defendants B.

except that this shall not apply.

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “I”) cannot be deemed to have renounced the sales agency business related to H market reconstruction at the time when Defendant A (1) 1 (hereinafter “I”) did not have renounced the sales agency business related to H market at the time, and there was no intention of defraudation by having B jointly and severally surety the borrowed money debt.

② As to the crime of fraud against the victim N in the holding of the lower judgment, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) was closed, payment was delayed due to the failure to properly settle accounts, and thus, there was no intention to commit fraud at all.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

(2) Not so on.

Even if the sentence of the court below sentenced to the defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In fact, there was no conspiracy with Defendant B, and there was no choice but to be a joint and several surety according to A’s instruction, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

(2) Not so on.

Even if the sentence of the court below sentenced to the defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal as to the above grounds of appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for the change of indictment with the content of partially changing the facts charged against the Defendants, and this court permitted it, so the judgment of the court below, which is the premise of the initial indictment, cannot be maintained. Since each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below by Defendant A, which was stated in the judgment of the court below, was sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below is