A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by Defendant A) and Defendant A introduced victims upon the request of Defendant B to lend money, and there was no conspiracy to commit the crime of fraud with Defendant B. The victim D merely lent money to Defendant A with personal-friendly relationship, and there was no deception from Defendant A (6 months of imprisonment). It is too unreasonable that the lower court’s imprisonment (6 months of imprisonment) was too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not have conspired with Defendant A to commit fraud. Defendant B had sufficient intent and ability to repay KRW 30 million. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendants argued that the above mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is identical to the assertion of the above mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions when compared to the first instance court’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined a sentence by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.