The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that this judgment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A’s mistake of the facts set forth in the 2016 Highest 1321, the Defendant was the operator of the Victim H Co., Ltd.

There is a loan of KRW 70 million to the above company's account by the request of G on February 2016, which was kept in custody as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Since the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of embezzlement of business is appropriated for repayment of the above loan amounting to 50 million won, it is unfair.

In relation to the "2016 Highest 1362", although the defendant did not normalize the company that had been operated by the injured party, he did not receive the expense of fraud.

The judgment of the court below which found guilty of fraud is unfair.

The defendant related to the "2016 Highest 1401" did not conspired with B, was unaware of the crime B, and was not aware of the crime, and was divided into fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as the accomplice in the crime of fraud on the basis of only the statement without any objective evidence on the conspiracy.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the original court on the argument that Defendant A was erroneous in sentencing, the criminal facts of the original judgment against Defendant A are sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above defendant's assertion of facts.

The appellate court for the determination of the sentencing of the lower court on each unfair argument of sentencing should respect the determination of the sentencing of the first instance in cases where there is no change in the conditions of the sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion.

The court below held that the defendants A's judgment has become final and conclusive in the case of defendants A, under the circumstances that the Act on the Punishment of Crimes is planned and aimed at many victims, and its contents are not good, that the total amount of damages is not recovered from almost less than 500 million won, that there was a record of the same kind of crime in the case of defendants A, and that there was a mistake.