1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

2. The defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts and defense counsel explicitly cited unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but they are erroneous in the fact-finding by the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of the lower court is unfair, and thus, they should be judged by considering it as grounds for mistake of facts.

[Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] The defendant deceivings the victim He while driving in the NIS as the executive officer was true, or caused the victim trusting the defendant to exchange US dollars with W,O, etc., and there was no intention to deliver the fees to the victim and to obtain the payment of US$ 1 million in Hong Kong and 3 million won in China.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on the defendant A (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B misunderstanding of facts and defense counsel explicitly cited the grounds of appeal only an unreasonable sentencing, but they are erroneous in the fact-finding by the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of the lower court is unreasonable, and thus, they shall be deemed to be erroneous in its determination of facts.

[Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] In light of the degree of involvement of the defendant in the crime of this case and the control of functional act, the defendant had dolusisis

Even if participation is not a joint principal offender, the degree of participation constitutes aiding and abetting.

The imprisonment with labor (one year and six months) imposed by the court below on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

On the ground of appeal, the court below, after compiling the evidence, found facts as stated in the judgment of the court below as to the argument of the grounds for appeal by A, determined that the defendant A could fully recognize that the defendant A had obtained the above bill from the victim He and obtained the Hong Kong $1 million and three million Chinese People's Union.

The court below is legitimate.