Defendant

All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation at the time of misunderstanding the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged, even though the lower court acknowledged Defendant B’s criminal intent for aiding and abetting fraud.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

2) Improper sentencing (for Defendant A), the lower court’s sentence is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts by Defendant A also made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail in the “judgment on Defendant A’s assertion” item of the judgment.

Examining this judgment of the court below in a thorough manner with evidence, including the testimony of the witness O and R, the judgment is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant A.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

2) It is recognized that Defendant A has no record of being punished for the same crime, etc. for determining the unfair argument of sentencing by Defendant A and the Prosecutor.

On the other hand, the amount of damage in this case reaches approximately KRW 128 million, which has not yet been recovered from damage, and considering all of the sentencing conditions stated in the argument in this case, such as Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes in this case, etc., such as the motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes in this case, it does not seem that the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too heavy or it is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the above unfair sentencing argument by the defendant A and prosecutor is without merit.

B. Defendant B’s summary of Defendant B’s factory room is on three floors of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government P building around September 2015.