Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months.

Defendant .

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 110 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) was committed solely by A to obtain money from the victim U.S., and the Defendant did not have conspired with Defendant B, and the judgment of the court below that found Defendant B conspired with Defendant B and found the Defendant guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined that Defendant A obtained money from two victims, and obtained money totaled to KRW 310 million, and that the amount was not much, and Defendant A received KRW 110 million in total in favor of public officials and received KRW 110 million in favor of the Defendant A, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant, in view of the fact that Defendant A received money from two victims, and that the crime is inferior and the amount is high, the lower court determined that Defendant A was returned KRW 100 million in consideration of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant A did not have any same power, that Defendant A suffered from this disease, and that Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment (an additional collection of KRW 2 years, 110 million) as seen earlier.

B. The judgment of the court below 1) Defendant A made efforts to recover damage after the decision of the court below, and it appears that the damage was fully recovered to the victim L (the registration of the establishment of a right to collateral security with respect to the Daegu Suwon-gu BP with the maximum amount of KRW 200 million for the creditor and the creditor and the creditor's claim amount) and the victim L submitted a written agreement in which the victim would not be punished against Defendant A and his preference to the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, in the case of the trial, the sentencing of the defendant A's fraud is limited to the victim.