2. The judgment of the Defendants did not have the power to be punished as a crime of fraud, and all of their mistakes are against the Defendants. In the case of the Defendants’ crime of defraudation of the price for luscop scrap, since 3 or 4 of the 16 containers were normal, the victim’s actual damage amount and criminal proceeds acquired by the Defendant are less than the amount indicated in the facts of the crime in the judgment. In the case of Defendant B’s crime of fraud against the victim S, it appears that the Defendants could not have deceiving the victim in the plan from the beginning.

However, there is no change in circumstances that may be considered for sentencing from the judgment of the court below to the trial after the sentence of the court below is rendered, for the following reasons: (a) the defendants committed the crime of defraudation of the proceeds of the lux scrap scrap that is planned and organized by the defendants; (b) the nature of the crime is very rough and bad; (c) the size of the money acquired by the defendants is about KRW 200 million in the case of the defendants A; and (d) about KRW 400 million in the case of the defendants B; and (e) the defendants did not take any specific measures to recover from damage to the case; and (e) the victims did not receive a letter, etc.; and (e) taking into account the various circumstances, including the motive and circumstance of each of the crimes in this case, the age, character and conduct of the defendants, and the environment, etc.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.