Of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance, the conviction against Defendant B shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the judgment of the court of first instance by Defendant A is too inappropriate.

B. The sentencing of the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 is too inappropriate

(The grounds of appeal by the defendant, etc. submitted after the lapse of the deadline for appeal shall be determined within the scope of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds of appeal, and no separate judgment shall be made as to the arguments that are not entered in the grounds of appeal

Defendant

The sentencing of Q2 lower judgment is too unreasonable.

1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (the part not guilty in the judgment of the second instance), the court below acquitted Defendant B of this part of the charges, although it could sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant B received KRW 18 million from the victim C around September 3, 2013, and acquired it by deceit, the court below acquitted Defendant B of this part of the charges. The judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts. 2) The judgment of the court below on Defendant B of unfair sentencing is too

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio Defendant B’s judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and prosecutor prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B.

The first and second court sentenced Defendant B to the punishment of each of the Defendant’s respective sentences after completing separate hearings with the Gwangju District Court 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 1802, Gwangju High Court 2017 High Court 1246, and the first instance court filed an appeal against Defendant B and the second court 2, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings with each of the above appeals. The first and second judgments of the court below on the first and second crimes against Defendant B are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and they should be sentenced to a single sentence within a limited term of punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, all of the judgment of the court below cannot be exempt from reversal.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still a ground for ex officio destruction.