Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

A. Regarding misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A) with respect to the fraud against Victim G and T, Defendant A was unaware of the fact that KRW 6 million was transferred to the account in the name of Defendant C around October 10, 201, and the Dispute Resolution Committee E was unable to transfer the registration to Victim G on the ground of the failure to pay the balance.

In addition, from the beginning, the victims did not receive the purchase price from the victims without the intention of the transfer of ownership, but did not transfer the registration because the corporate circumstance makes it difficult for the victims to receive any balance from the victims.

As to the fraud against the victim J, the defendant A failed to verify the special terms and conditions at the time of entering into a lease agreement with the victim, and there was no act of deception such as the statement in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, each court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and sentenced Defendant A not guilty of each of the facts charged in this case.

B. (1) The sentence imposed by Defendant A and the lower court on the said Defendants [Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months (the first instance judgment) and imprisonment for four months (the second instance judgment), and Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months] are excessively unreasonable.

(2) The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the Defendants (as above, Defendant A and B: the above, Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor of two months) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Each appeal case against the judgment of the court below against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 was consolidated ex officio prior to the judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal by the defendant A (the part against the defendant A among the judgment of the court below). Since each offense of the above judgment of the court below is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, each offense of the above judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single punishment within the scope of the term of punishment imposed for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part against the defendant A among

However, the defendant A's mistake of facts despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.