Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A. From the judgment of the court below 1, Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing) 1, Defendant A (A) was operated independently by Defendant B, and Defendant A was in collusion with the above order of 2015, 9502, 2015, 93, 727, 835, 1675, 240, 1670, 1675 and 2400, with respect to the fraud of Defendant A (A). Defendant A was the actual operator of “F”. Defendant A was only a business director to receive a return of the amount previously loaned from Defendant B (2014, 9502, 2015, 727, 2015, 727). Defendant A was in collusion with the above order of Defendant B and managed the entry and exit of the head of the Tong (2015, 93, 835, 1675).

2) The sentencing of first instance on each of the sentencing offenses against the illegal defendant (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years and 6 months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The first deliberation punishment of Defendant B (unfair sentencing) (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court of first instance, and each appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A were consolidated in the trial. The facts constituting the crime are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence is to be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.