Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

However, as to Defendant B, the same shall apply.

A. Defendant A’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) Of the facts charged against Defendant B of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the charge of fraud through the defraudation of promissory note discount amounting to 48,00,000 won on June 2008 is in a substantive concurrent relationship with the remaining facts charged, and thus, the judgment of not guilty should be rendered in the text.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

C. The prosecutor (1) mismisunderstanding the facts in collusion with the Defendants, which acquired KRW 48,00,000 from the victim as the discount amount of promissory notes on June 2008.

(2) The lower court’s sentence on Defendant B is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On June 2008, the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the fraud of Defendant B with respect to the amount of KRW 48,00,000 for a promissory note discount and the judgment of the court below as to the ex officio against Defendant A (1) the summary of the crime of fraud against the Defendants guilty, despite the lack of intent or ability to allow the Defendants to obtain ownership transfer to the victim of the Incheon Dong-gu H and I Park Park, the Defendants by deceiving the victim as expenses for the work, and acquired KRW 121,50,000 for the sum from April 28, 2008 to February 19, 2009.

(2) On June 2008, the summary of the charge of fraud caused by defraudation of the discounted discount amount of 48,000,000 won against the Defendants, which the lower court recognized that there was no proof of crime, Defendant A was bound by the so-called brea-called brea-bbbing note, which cannot be paid on the payment date indicated in the promissory note from Defendant B on June 2008, and then, 48,000,000 won, presenting it to the victims as if it was a true plastic bill that can be settled on the payment date.

(3) In the event that a number of conducts or series of conducts falling under the name of the same offense continues to be conducted for a certain period of time under the single and continuous criminal intent and the legal benefits of such damage are the same, all these conducts shall be the single offense.