A. Defendant A’s punishment (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) There was no intention to obtain money from the victim misunderstanding the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Defendant B made the same assertion in the lower court as to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, and the lower court, on the grounds of its stated reasoning, deemed that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A at the time when he received KRW 800 million from the injured party was involved in the instant fraud crime.

Accordingly, Defendant B’s assertion was rejected.

A thorough examination of the records and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of law due to the omission of facts (as a witness Q Q’s legal statement examined according to Defendant B’s application at the court of the first instance shows a lack of credibility in light of the relationship with Defendant B and its contents, it cannot be said that the above judgment is affected). This part of the Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

3. Defendant A’s judgment on the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing was made in the first instance, and all of the instant crimes were recognized, thereby contravening the Defendants’ mistake.

Defendant

B Unlike Defendant A, it seems that there is no personal benefit obtained through the instant fraud crime.

Defendant

A has no criminal record of the same fraud, and Defendant B has no criminal record of the same fraud and of the suspension of execution.

However, the defendants attempted to receive a large amount of profit through the residential officetel sales business, and have access to the victims and acquired approximately KRW 800 million from the victims.

The Defendants’ nature of crime is bad in light of the course and method of crime, the scale of damage amount, etc.

Defendant

A, despite the fact that H was able to recover damage by receiving KRW 80 million deposited at sea for G, he used it for other purposes without returning it to the victim.