A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the fraud against Defendant T’s victim A in the judgment of the court below of the second instance), even though the facts charged are sufficiently proved, the court below acquitted the Defendant T with the charge of deceiving the victim, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to “the act of deception”. 2) The court below’s decision of unfair sentencing is unfair because the sentence imposed on the Defendants (Defendant A: one year and ten months of imprisonment, and three years and four months of imprisonment, etc.) is too uneasible.

B. The respective types of punishment (the first instance court's imprisonment: the second instance court's imprisonment with prison labor; the second instance court's imprisonment with prison labor; October) of the judgment below is too unreasonable.

C. The imprisonment (4 months of imprisonment and 3 years and 4 months of imprisonment) imposed by the second court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A) rendered ex officio judgment (the judgment of the court of first instance), and the defendant A and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court of second instance decided to hold the above two cases jointly for deliberation.

However, since the crimes of the first and second judgment against Defendant A are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding compensation order and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A among the judgment of the court of

3. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the second instance court acquitted Defendant T on the charge of fraud against Defendant AA on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, in light of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, cannot be deemed to have been proven without reasonable doubt.

2. We examine the judgment of the second instance court by comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the second instance court with the evidence.