A. misunderstanding of facts (Defendant B) only provided a card device for the settlement of investment funds to Defendant A, but there was no conspiracy for all of the instant crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B also denied the entire crime of this case in the original judgment, as alleged above, Defendant B, as well as Defendant B, in the original judgment, and only recognized the fact that Defendant B provided a card device to Defendant A in the original trial. The court below asserted as to the grounds for detailed judgment, and rejected the above argument in the final judgment. 2) In the event that the appellate court tried to re-examine the first instance judgment and to reverse the first instance judgment ex post facto and ex post facto, even though there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017) (see, 2017). There is no objective reason to affect the formation of a new conviction in the trial, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that maintaining the judgment of the lower court is remarkably unfair when comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court with the content of the lower court. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. A change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing.