A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts by the victim’s request, and there was no conspiracy between Defendant A and the fraud. (2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A became final and conclusive, and the fact that Defendant A was able to make a confession and reflect on the instant crime, and that health conditions are not good, etc. are favorable to Defendant A.

On the other hand, Defendant A again commits the instant crime even though he had the record of criminal punishment over several times including the same crime. The instant crime is unfavorable to Defendant A, such as the following: (a) Defendant A, by deceiving the victim by taking out loan brokerage, thereby deceiving the victim; (b) the nature of the crime is bad; (c) Defendant A used most of the proceeds of the instant crime; (d) Defendant A did not agree with the victim; and (e) did not have been recovered from damage.

In light of the above circumstances and other various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant B also asserted the same purport as the aforementioned mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B’s grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the judgment in detail.

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant B in collusion with Defendant A.