The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 5,00.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts by Defendant I (hereinafter “I”)

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) was too unreasonable, and the victim K made an investment by Co-Defendant B’s own decision in accordance with Co-Defendant B’s theory, and does not provide money to the Defendant’s end.

B. Defendant C’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case’s judgment ex officio, it is recognized that Defendant A was sentenced to 2 years of probation, 10 million won of a fine, and 120 hours of a community service order for October 3, 2012 to be sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Customs Act at the Incheon District Court on January 31, 2012, and that the judgment became final and conclusive on October 3, 2012, which was after the sentence of the judgment below was rendered. Since the crime of violating the Customs Act for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of fraud of this case are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be determined in consideration of equity and the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1)

However, the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is examined.

B. The following circumstances, namely, Defendant A received J and Defendant C from Co-Defendant B who became aware of the transaction, and Defendant A’s solicitation from September 2004 to October 2005, to analyze the goods sold or to identify the sales place of the goods sold, which were recognized as the first director (Evidence Record 142 pages, 194 pages and 197 pages). Defendant A had no record of selling the goods sold at an investigative agency at the first investigative agency, and at the time of receiving the investment money from the victim, Defendant A could not pay the employee’s salary.