A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding Defendant A’s fraud against Defendant A) and Defendant A’s fraud cannot be deemed as a fraud inasmuch as Defendant A knew of business practices that raise a certain level of the sales price when receiving leases for used machines, and the victim G was aware of such circumstances. Defendant A paid the lease fee in a normal manner and did not incur any damage to the victim G, and Defendant A cannot be deemed as a fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) As to the fraud against the victim K, the victim K’s machine learning center (E; hereinafter “this case’s machine”).

(2) Since Defendant A did not inform the victim K of the fact that the name tag “manufacturing year 200,” attached to the instant small machinery,” which was installed on the instant small machinery, was voluntarily produced, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A had the intention of fraud. Nevertheless, as the lower court found Defendant B guilty of this part of the charges, the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) In the case of the fixed machinery lease for Defendant B, concluding a lease contract by raising a little amount of the purchase price is an industry practice, and the victim G (State) was a specialized lease company, and thus, it was set the lease amount through a strict examination on the instant small machinery, and even if the victim G (State) did not incur any damage, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B had the intention of fraud.

Nevertheless, since the court below found the defendant guilty, it erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Defendant A of the lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 2 years of suspended execution, and Defendant B.