Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for the first offense in judgment.

A. In light of the fact that Defendant A (A) occupational embezzlement, business obstruction U’s existence or absence of the remainder of advance payment made to Defendant A, there is no disposition document that U acquired the business right of “V,” and Defendant A paid rent for the V site, the actual owner of V is Defendant A, but the lower court concluded that Defendant A committed a crime of occupational embezzlement and obstruction of business, such as criminal facts, when the original trial was conducted on the premise that the owner of V is U, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Fraud cannot be deemed to have been committed by Defendant A to offer a promissory note as security at the time of borrowing KRW 50 million from R, and even though Defendant A and R continued transactions with Defendant A had already been paid KRW 50 million as the loan price for the goods supplied by Defendant A to R, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that Defendant A committed fraud like the criminal facts at the time of original adjudication, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court sentenced to unfair sentencing (Article 1-A, 2-A, 2-B, 3-B, 2-B, 4, and 5 of the Decision: Imprisonment with labor for 1 year, 2-2 of the Decision: imprisonment with labor for 2-B, 4, and 5) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the punishment No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for three months, and the punishment No. 6: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

(B) On the first trial of the trial of the trial court, the defendant B explicitly withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts as to the general traffic obstruction as stated in the judgment of the court below).

A. In light of the following circumstances, Defendant A1’s occupational embezzlement, fraud, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, Defendant A1’s actual owner, not the Defendant, can sufficiently recognize the fact of U.S. rather than the Defendant.