Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

(b).

In the end, the defendant did not intend to acquire money from the victim R.

Since the fraud of the victim AF did not deceiving the victim AF of the economic ability of the defendant, and the victim AF was fully aware of the economic ability of the defendant, there was no intention to acquire the victim.

The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 1 year and 6 months, as indicated in the holding, and imprisonment with prison labor for 2 and 3 years) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it can be recognized that Defendant B, at the time of August 2009, acquired money from the victim R in collusion with Defendant A, etc. in a situation where it is not actually impossible to remove and sell the steel bars installed at the construction site of this case at the time of the instant accident. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① The N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) borrowed construction costs of Defendant B’s opening office around December 2008 and took over construction. There was little license to carry out removal construction work. This was a situation in which both the Defendants and C are aware.

② Defendants and C were to raise funds by using the sn beamline supply at the construction site of this case, which is the middle of the construction site of this case.

For the purpose of using it, Defendants and C do not have a license for the removal of the light on March 9, 2009.