[Defendant A] Each part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence imposed by the lower court by Defendant A (No. 4 years of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 15,300,000, and KRW 2 years and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 109,50,000) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the mistake of facts and the statement in the court of original judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to obtain a total of KRW 52 million from the victim E under the pretext of attorney appointment fees and borrowed money, etc., among the facts charged against Defendant B, the court below acquitted Defendant B on the fraud of the victim E

(2) Each of the above punishments imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor, Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below ex officio, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal against the judgment of the court below. Since each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, each offense in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A should be sentenced to a single sentence under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court below

B. (1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, E introduced Defendant A at the beginning of September 2012 at the lower court’s court’s “C-related work on the back of September 2012 with Defendant B and A, and Defendant A expressed to the effect that he would help him in the future, and thereafter, Defendant A expressed to the effect that he will help him in the future.