The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

Defendant

B. The defendant B is not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (De facto mistake) knew the victim H of a dispute over the G Company’s shares in F with F, and thus, Defendant A did not deceiving the victim.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts, ① I, the victim’s statement, and the contract for transfer of production business rights (Evidence No. 197 of the evidence record), etc., the defendant A may recognize the fact that the defendant A, in collusion with the defendant A, could promptly extract minerals in the mine of this case. ② According to the relationship of the defendant’s work and the victim’s statement, it can be recognized that the defendant B, in collusion with the defendant A, concealed a dispute over the shares of G company with the defendant A, concealed the facts surrounding the dispute, and committed the crime of this case by deceiving the defendant A as if he could promptly extract minerals. (2) The court below’s sentence against the defendant A of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) against the defendant A is too unreasonable

2. Ex officio determination

A. The prosecutor of Amendments to Bill of Indictment is at the trial below:

The judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, inasmuch as the defendant A was convicted of the modified facts charged, as shown in the revised facts charged, was applied for changes in the indictment, and this court permitted it, and the subject of the judgment was modified.

However, the defendant A and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still included in the scope of the trial of the political party despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, so this is considered in paragraph (3).

B. The revised facts charged are those who obtained permission to explore mines in Mongolia from the Mongolian Government on February 2, 2007.

The above mining exploration permission that the defendants received is merely a right to explore minerals, so it is impossible to extract and sell minerals only with the above exploration permission, and for this purpose, it is required to obtain separate extraction permission, and a lot of time and expenses are required to obtain extraction permission.