Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s sentence of the lower court (amended by 8 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts as stated in the facts charged, Defendant B did not deceiving the victim in collusion with Defendant A, and concluded a false statement with the victim or a private construction standard contract with the victim. Defendant B did not have the intent or ability to pay the construction cost at the time.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. Determination 1 as to the assertion that there was no conspiracy with Defendant A) 2 or more persons in the co-offender relationship, which is jointly processed in a crime, do not require any legal penalty, and only if two or more persons agree to jointly process a crime and realize the crime, they are the combination of intent to realize the crime. As such, there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

In light of the above legal principles, even if there is no explicit conspiracy with Defendant A prior to November 5, 2010, and even if there is no direct involvement in the implementation, even if there is a person who did not directly participate in the implementation act, he/she is held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another competitor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6103, Oct. 24, 2003). 2), in light of the above legal principles, Defendant B did not have any explicit conspiracy with Defendant A prior to November 5, 2010, nor did Defendant B indicate as a party to the private standard construction contract concluded between Defendant A and victim G.

In other words, the victim G was aware of the first defendant A as the owner of the building of this case, and the building owner on the certified copy of the registry is F.