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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

, however, the defendant.

A. The grounds for appeal filed by Defendant A are examined only to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds for appeal, and each statement of reasons for appeal filed after the lapse of the period for appeal.

1) Fact finding misunderstanding - Of the damages amounting to KRW 200 million in total of KRW 200 million as stated in this part of the facts charged, the victim Q paid to Defendant B on January 28, 2013, the remainder, excluding KRW 80 million in direct delivery by Defendant A, i.e., KRW 20 million in the above KRW 100 million, the victim Q, paid to Defendant B on March 27, 2013, KRW 60 million in total, and KRW 40 million in total, paid on March 29, 2013, KRW 120 million in total ( KRW 20 million in total), KRW 60 million in total, KRW 40 million in total, KRW 40 million in total, and KRW 40 million in total, KRW 40 million in total, and KRW 40 million in total, KRW 400 in total,00 in total,00 in the above part, Defendant Q did not have acquired any money against Defendant Q.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts 1) - Defendant B received KRW 100 million from the Victim Q on January 28, 2013, and delivered KRW 80 million among them to Defendant A. The remainder of KRW 20 million was delivered to Defendant A upon the Victim Q’s request, not deceiving Defendant Q to receive the said money, and there was no intention to obtain the said money by fraud with Defendant A.

In addition, on March 27, 2013, the sum of KRW 60 million transferred from the victim Q Q and KRW 100 million transferred on March 29, 2013, and KRW 40 million transferred on March 29, 2013, Defendant B borrowed from the victim Q to carry out the housing implementation project, and the purpose of the loan was expressed to Q Q.

Therefore, even though the crime of fraud against Defendant B is not established, the facts charged in this case against Defendant B.