A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The joining of Defendant B, the receipt and use of the guidance money, etc. are entirely made through A, and the Defendant did not obtain the guidance money in collusion with A, and the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire it because he had sufficient financial resources at the time.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by receiving the fraternity by paying only some of the fraternitys after joining the number system, and it is not good to the nature of the crime. The amount of the defraudation of this case is the total sum of KRW 188,50,000, the actual amount of damage excluding the money paid in part is also about KRW 14,000,000, and it seems that there is no particular damage recovery until now.

Considering the above circumstances and various circumstances, which are the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's assertion as to the defendant B can be fully recognized that the defendant acquired the money of this case in collusion with A. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the restaurant was operated and the defendant did not have any obligation, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant operated the restaurant and was responsible for the obligation.