Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the defendant.

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the Defendants and the victims’ respective statements as to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment’s judgment as to the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts (defendant A and B), the facts that Defendant A and B conspired with the damaged person can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment unfair (for the Defendants), which the court below sentenced against the Defendants (10 months of imprisonment, 6 months of probation, 80 hours of community service order, 80 hours of imprisonment, 8 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service order) are too uneased and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal on Defendant B, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor added the following ancillary charges to the effect that Defendant B alone embezzled the sales proceeds of a motor vehicle, and applied for amendments to the indictment with the content that “Embezzlement” was added to “Embezzlement” under the conjunctive applicable law, and “Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act,” and “Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act” under the conjunctive applicable law, while maintaining the previous facts charged in collusion with Defendant A and B as the primary facts charged. The court permitted this.

As seen below, as long as the judgment of not guilty of the primary facts charged against Defendant B is rendered, the conjunctive facts added at the trial of the court are subject to a trial of this court, so the judgment of the court below that only the primary facts charged is subject to a trial of the court is no longer maintained.

[Preliminary Indictment] The Defendant is from June 2016 to June 2016

7. In the vicinity of the Masan-dong, Busan Metropolitan City, and through A, a loan shall be granted on the part of the above vehicle after the victim I was dried up with the O re-scheduled vehicle owned by the victim.