The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The defendants jointly acquire money from the applicant J to the applicant for compensation 250 million won.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (2017 high-class 36 fraud) made a deception to the victim J is F, and when F was issued a check by K, a representative of the victim J, a fraud has already been established.

Since F and the Defendants did not have conspired at all, they did deception against F.

Even if the Defendants’ deception against F and the dispositive act by the victim J were to be terminated, the causal relationship between the Defendants’ deception and the victim J was severed.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant B had the same assertion in the lower court as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts as to the grounds for appeal by the Defendants, and the lower court convicted Defendant B of the lower judgment on the lower court’s assertion at the bottom of the part 36 of the 2017 High Order 36.

In addition to the following circumstances, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the court below's determination of guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the fact finding and judgment is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by Defendant B.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The victim J, while finding a way to exchange the 500 million won check in cash, listens to the opinion that it is possible to be commercialized through K, which is a paper, and delivers the check to K, and entrusts K with the exchange of checks and cash.

In this regard, K heard the words that it could exchange the checks in cash from F and that it confirmed cash, trust it, and again issue the checks to F.

Although F did not directly confirm cash, it is the same that Defendant B was able to see the key of the vehicle and 50 million won in cash on the vehicle.