The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below's sentence against the prosecutor's defendants (2 years of suspended execution in June, 2 years of imprisonment, 6 months of imprisonment, and 5 million won of fine: defendant C) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

C. (1) The judgment of the court below that recognized the above defendant as a joint principal offender under a different premise and affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, even though the defendant only introduced the defendant A to the above defendant A, who is a loan hub, and there was no conspiracy to commit the fraud in the judgment.

Dob. The sentence of the court below on the above defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined the mistake of facts as to Defendant C: (a) appears to have been aware of the fact that Defendant C was the hub of the fraud law as indicated in the judgment of the first instance court; (b) as well as (c) Defendant C was present at the H coffee shop, which was held on February 2, 2012 by the first instance court; (d) Defendant C was present at the meeting of Defendant C; and (e) directly received KRW 5,500,000 from Defendant A at the time of receiving a letter of vehicle abandonment as to the franchise vehicle as indicated in the judgment of the lower court; and (b) Defendant C continued to demand repayment to Defendant A around before and after 2012; and (e) Defendant C did not pay the money borrowed from H coffee shop as indicated in the judgment of the lower court on January 2012; and (e) in light of the legal principles as seen above, it was sufficient to view that the lower court lawfully obtained money from the Defendant A to receive money from the evidence of the first instance court.