A. The Defendants (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing) paid approximately KRW 40 million as a deposit amount after receiving a deposit amount. The Defendants failed to pay an additional deposit amount due to a default on December 31, 2012. The Defendants had the intent and ability to pay, and did not have had the intent to commit fraud from the beginning. 2) The first instance sentencing of the Defendants on the first instance judgment (each of August, suspension of execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court on Defendant A is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court’s judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendants conspired in collusion with the Defendants, while there is no intent or ability to pay the fraternity due to the property condition as stated in the first instance court’s judgment, by deceiving the victims in sum KRW 80 million, as stated in the above judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts.

3. We examine both the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

In full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant case, the details of the instant crime, the relationship with the victim, the extent and degree of damage, the effort of the Defendants to recover damage and the degree of damage recovery (the Defendants deposit KRW 17 million for the victim in the trial) by the Defendants, Defendant A did not have any criminal records, and Defendant B did not have any criminal records, and Defendant B did not have any criminal records, and other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing on the records, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is not deemed that the sentencing of the first instance court against the Defendants is too weak or unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing and the Prosecutor’s Defendant.