All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) At the time of borrowing money from Defendant A, the above Defendant operated the money.

E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) was continuously engaged in sales through normal business, but it was impossible to repay the borrowed money to the victim as the management situation has deteriorated thereafter, and the victim could have sufficiently predicted the repayment delay of the borrowed money by the above Defendant, so the above Defendant’s fraud and deception are not recognized.

2) Defendant B’s victim is more self-sufficient than Defendant A, and the above Defendant B consented to the request of Defendant B to destroy the certificate of loan under the name of Defendant A when demanding the preparation of the loan certificate, and the above Defendant also determined that the inducement of investment in China was certain at the time of the above Defendant’s investment, thereby making it possible to repay the amount of loan to the victim. Thus, the above Defendant had the intent of deceiving or defrauding the victim.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Sentencing of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (the 8-month imprisonment, the 2-year suspended sentence, the 4-month suspended sentence, and the 2-year suspended sentence) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, Defendant A asserted the same purport as this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected this part of the above Defendant’s assertion in detail in the column of “determination on the Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion” of the judgment.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in a thorough comparison with the evidence, the lower court’s finding of facts and determination are justifiable, and the lower court’s judgment did not err by misapprehending the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the said Defendant, and thus, this part of the lower court’

2) Defendant B’s judgment is legitimate.