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

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months.

Defendant

D-.

A. Defendant B’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D (1) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to each of the above crimes as substantive concurrent crimes, since the crime of violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act and habitual fraud committed against Defendant D constitutes several crimes.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (A) The Defendants’ crime of this case against Defendant A consists of a series of acts from the beginning of the crime to the manufacture, storage, and sale of fake transit. The public offering is not divided by phase, but is made at the stage of establishing a plan for the crime. Defendant A bears the responsibility for the crime of an accomplice with respect to the whole crime as an investor of funds necessary for the manufacture of fake transit. In light of the statements of accomplices B and G, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant A conspired to commit the entire crime by taking charge of investing in the fund from the beginning of the crime to September 4, 2013. Thus, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of violating the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act among the facts charged against Defendant A.

(B) As long as Defendant B’s conspiracy on the manufacture, storage, and sale of fake transit cannot be separated. Defendant B’s total liability for the manufacture of fake transit was found to have been in collusion with accomplices, Defendant B’s pecuniary benefits from the victims by selling fake transit at the Defendant’s stations, AP stations, AP stations, AP stations, Y stations, AR stations, AL stations, and AF stations.