Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B, for two years.

A. Defendant A is merely a person who has sustained losses after making an investment in the instant case in trust of the horses of D and B, not deceiving victims, and did not intend to commit the crime of defraudation.

The testimony of the victims of this case, including H, is not reliable, and the witness D, B, and N of the original court made a false statement in order to escape their responsibilities, and there is no credibility in the statement, and the court below found the defendant guilty on the basis of this, there is an error of law by mistake of facts (misunderstanding of facts). Even if the defendant was guilty, considering that the defendant also suffered considerable economic damage due to the investment of this case, the punishment of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable (unfair sentencing). (b) The punishment of the above defendant B against the defendant is too unreasonable. The punishment of the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the above Defendants A and B is too unhued and unfair.

Defendant

Although Defendant C conspired with other Defendants on the basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant C had acquired money from victims, the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the appellate court acknowledged the judgment of the court below as to the credibility of the witness’s statement made at the court below in accordance with the principle of substantial direct deliberation adopted by our Criminal Procedure Act. In light of the evidence, the court below clearly erred in the judgment of the court below as to the credibility of the witness’

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see that maintaining the judgment of the court below is significantly unfair or in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the judgment of the court below is considerably unfair, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed (Supreme Court Decision 14 June 14, 2012).