The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant

A. The judgment of the court below is acquitted.

A. Defendant A1’s mistake (guilty part of the lower judgment) (hereinafter “victim”) was the victim’s side who was delegated by K with respect to investment by the agent of the victim H (hereinafter “victim”) and was in collusion with the victim or K, and did not deceiving the victim. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the lower court determined the Defendant as a joint principal offender for each of the instant fraud crimes, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

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

B. Defendant B 1’s misunderstanding of the facts (guilty part of the lower judgment) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, inasmuch as the Defendant believed the horses of F that he would be ordered to take part in the construction of soil and sand transport within the G Housing Development Zone in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and provided one’s passbook in accordance with F’s instructions, and did not directly participate in the process of investing the damaged person’s funds, and the damaged person used all the transferred funds in accordance with F’s instructions, and thus, the Defendant did not deceive the victimized person in collusion with F, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

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

(c)

(1) Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles [the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles / The Defendants participated in the instant case, the construction amount column of the construction contract of the instant construction project, and the date of the commencement of construction was already excessive; the amount delivered by the Defendants to the W commemorative Project Association, an incorporated association (hereinafter referred to as the “W commemorative Project Association”) among the 500 million won that was delivered by the injured parties, was over KRW 150 million; the remainder was used by F and the Defendants divided into KRW 50 million; the Prosecutor appears to use the said money in division; the Prosecutor 12573 million from the above KRW 500 million to F, the CA (the wife of Defendant A); and the Defendant B, KRW 110 million to the Defendant.