[Defendant A] Of the lower judgment, the remainder of the lower judgment, excluding fraud against Defendant A’s victim BG, is relevant to each other.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment imposed by the lower court (unfair punishment) on Defendant A (two years of suspended sentence of six months for fraud against Victim BG, and one year and six months of imprisonment for all other frauds except for the crime of fraud against Victim BG) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment imposed by the lower court (unfair punishment) on Defendant C (two months of the suspension of the execution of the punishment for the crime of fraud against Victim AK, and six months of the imprisonment for each other except the crime of fraud against Victim AK) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below found the above Defendants guilty of each of the facts charged, but there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 2 year of suspended execution, 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, 4 million won of fine, 6 months of imprisonment, 4 months of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution, 7 million won of fine: Defendant E's fine) which was sentenced by the court below (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 4 months of suspended execution, 4 months of imprisonment, 7 million won of fine).

2. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for determining the mistake of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value sufficient to cause the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no such evidence, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001, etc.). The court below acquitted Defendant D and F on the ground that there was no proof of a crime in relation to each of the facts charged against Defendant D and F, based on its stated reasoning. The reasoning of the judgment below is justified.