Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, and for a defendant B, for eight months, respectively.

(b).

2. The Defendants already committed the instant crime even though they had the same criminal record. This is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants recognized the instant crime.

The Defendants offered the land owned by Defendant B as collateral to the victim, and it seems that the Si did not reach the amount of damage.

In addition, Defendant A paid an additional amount of KRW 30 million to the first instance, and agreed to pay a total of KRW 96.2 million to the victim.

Defendant

In the case of B, the equity between the case where the crime of this case and the judgment of fraud have become final and conclusive shall be taken into consideration.

This is favorable to the defendants.

In addition to these circumstances, Defendant A’s sentencing guidelines for the establishment of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court are 10 months to 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment as it falls under the mitigated area among the types of type 2 (the amount between KRW 100 million and below KRW 500 million) (the elements of mitigation are not punishable or where considerable damage was recovered), considering the circumstances that form the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual behavior, family relationship, family environment, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the court below is too too unreasonable. Thus, the above argument is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendants' appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for a new judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;