A. Each sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year; and Defendant B: fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of the acquittal portion against Defendant A), the fact that Defendant A conspired with L and acquired the sales proceeds of Handphones by deceiving victims while there is no intention or ability to sell Handphones.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the aforementioned L/B’s statement alone is insufficient to readily conclude the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) Unless there are exceptional cases where maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is deemed significantly unfair, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 delivered on November 24, 2006, etc.) In light of the circumstances and evidence legitimately presented by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged in this part is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. Determination on the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing 1) Defendant A