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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant

B.

A. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts) had attempted to purchase and lend a loan as part of the work that he had done at ordinary times upon the request of the Defendant to inquire about the second and second dump trucks and the secured loan from A, and was not involved in the subsequent disposition by failing to meet the demand of A, but did not acquire the loan from the beginning in collusion with A.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the common principal of the crime of fraud against the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Although it is recognized that Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is obtainable by fraud, is not agreed with some victims, and the degree of part of Defendant A’s participation is significant, the Defendant is fully aware of and reflects the criminal facts. Meanwhile, the Defendant has agreed to lend the light management loan to the Plaintiff, which received the claim from the Plaintiff HK Savings Bank, and the Defendant has no record of criminal conduct exceeding the same criminal record or fine, and the Defendant has no record of criminal conduct beyond the same criminal record or fine. In full view of other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat somewhat unreasonable, and the Defendant’s assertion is reasonable.

B. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as that of the above facts, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. In so doing, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and the Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal is reasonable, and thus, Defendant A’s appeal is in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.