2. The crime of this case refers to a false statement that the defendants would have the victim take a priority in receiving a payment from the victim by taking out the guidance, and thus, Defendant B would have to pay the advance payment. The crime of this case is a case where Defendant B obtained a total of KRW 48 million, Defendant A would have obtained a pecuniary benefit equivalent to KRW 21 million in total, and the crime is not less weak, and the fact that the defendants did not agree with the victim until the trial is in fact unfavorable to the defendants.

On the other hand, the defendants acknowledged the crime of this case and committed the crime of this case, there is no record of criminal punishment prior to the crime of this case, Defendant A's crime of this case is in the relation of fraud for which judgment has become final and the concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the relation between the crime of this case and the concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Defendant A is to consider equality with the case where judgment has been rendered at the same time. Defendant A is deemed to have accepted proposals from the victim to pay the existing debts to the victim and G, Defendant A was deemed to have reached the crime of this case. Defendant A was appropriated for the payment of the existing debts to the victim. Defendant B was also appropriated for the payment of the existing debts to the victim and G. The fraternity funds received by the victim are also appropriated for the payment of the existing debts to the victim and the victim. After the crime of this case, Defendant A was committed at the restaurant operated by the victim after the crime of this case, and Defendant B repaid the total amount of KRW 2.7 million to each victim, and Defendant B deposited the victim's effort to recover damage.

The above circumstances and the background of the instant crime, and other circumstances.