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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

Defendant

B.

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A is a victim-in-charge (hereinafter “O”).

A) There was no deception by deceiving the P, the actual operator of the P, and the O also did not lend KRW 300 million to the Defendants by deception. In other words, P, in order to resolve civil and criminal issues arising in the course of selling the Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank to the Japan SBI Group, intended to obtain the help of Defendant B, the amount of KRW 300 million of theO to the Defendants at one’s own decision. ② Defendant A believed that Defendant B would be able to repay money by financing and borrowed KRW 300 million from the victimized company, and there was no intention of deception. (2) The punishment (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on June 10, 2013 and the same year

6. 12.12. There was no fact with Defendant A that he did not contact P, and there was no knowledge of the instant loan certificate (12 pages of investigation records). There was no fact that Defendant A received money from Defendant A in collusion with Defendant A.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there was no intention of deception among the defendant A's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the 1's assertion of mistake, the court below judged in detail the "2. Judgment" under the title "2. Determination of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion" and recognized the intention of deception. If the court below and the appellate court reviewed the evidence legitimately adopted and investigated in light of the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant A.

Meanwhile, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the appellate court.