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

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

Defendant

A.

A. Defendant A (1) was in a state of normal operation until July 2017, 2017, and the instant fish driving school transferred the said private teaching institute to F and has been on duty as an instructor on July 23, 2017, and even after reporting the closure of business on October 30, 2017, Defendant A did not have a criminal intent to obtain money from some students, since Defendant A had no criminal intent to obtain money from some students.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant B only engaged in consulting business with respect to the above fish driving school, and there was no fact that it was entrusted to do so, and Defendant B did not have a criminal intent by fraud.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment ex officio

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, and the prosecutor raised the case in this court, and the part No. 1 of the indictment No. 1 (the sole crime of Defendant A) No. 718,250 of the victim N’s damage amount was set forth in the [Attachment No. 1]

The part of “10,898,237 won” was “187,850 won” and “10,367,837 won” and “10,367,837 won, and the court granted permission and changed the subject of the judgment. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A was no longer maintained.

B. However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendants' misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles and the defendant B's improper assertion of sentencing are still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Defendant A (1) Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal. However, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by taking account of the legal statements of the victim I, J, K, etc. and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.