The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B, excluding the part concerning the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants B (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) (1) in relation to the fraud part of the case of 2017 Highest 1230, the Defendant came to know on June 6, 2016 that he was given a loan to a secondhand vehicle that he was entrusted to a police officer by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”), and that he was given a loan to a victim (user) on the security of the vehicle that he was transferred to a police officer by Defendant C through a police officer, and up to that time, he was aware that he was given a loan to a police officer by the victim (user). Until that day, he was aware that he had been entrusted with the vehicle leasing management, and thus, he was only extended to A with a secondhand vehicle that he was entrusted with the vehicle leasing management. Thus, until June 2016, the Defendant

② With respect to the fraud portion of “2017 Highest 2563, 2017 Highest 2563, he/she would borrow a loan from BF as collateral for the leased vehicle.

There is no fact that A or C borrowed money from BF.

The fraud portion of "2017 Highest 3638" was also deceiving A to make investments in the sales business of high-end vehicles imported by CB, and the Defendant did not take part in the above fraud crime.

B) The sentence of the lower court (five years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant C (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) ① In relation to the fraud of the case of “2017 Highest 1230, and the fraud part of “2017 Highest 1776” case, the Defendant was aware of the loan of a used vehicle that he/she possessed at the request of A and B, and the Defendant did not know that he/she was obtained by deception from the victims by deceiving A, etc. under the pretext that he/she would prejudice the succession of the lease. Since part of the loan was not distributed as profits, there was no fact that he/she conspiredd or participated in the fraudulent act with A, etc.

Even if the above used vehicle knew that it was a vehicle acquired by fraud, it is merely an act of arranging stolen goods, but does not constitute fraud.

(2) With respect to the fraudulent part against AJ in the case of "2017 High Order 1776", the defendant transfers money only to B.