The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years, respectively.

However, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant B of this part on the ground that the victim, who belongs to the defendant's deception and provided the defendant B with business funds, 269,270 won No. 269,270 of the list of crimes attached to the attached indictment of mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, two years of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) Defendant A committed a crime by having the victim collect money and valuables under various circumstances, such as the price for the acceptance of the contract; and (b) Defendant B conspired to commit a crime by gathering money if the amount of the price for the acceptance of the contract is less than the amount of the payment for the performance of the contract, etc., as the victim would be married with the victim.

Defendant

A scam like Defendant B’s scam ice, and the victim “packs a person to be a fraudulent act. B made a false statement to the victim, “B must be free if he has been aware of the right to demand the performance of the contract. B, even if she did not have the right to demand the performance of the contract. I, even if she was known to her, she is called “Wed delivery.”

Defendant

A and B, as such, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 200,000,000 from the Agricultural Cooperative Account (O), which is the exclusive account for the transfer of the rights to deposit on May 30, 2012.

As a result, Defendant A and B conspireded to receive the property from the victim and acquired the property.

(2) In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that Defendant A paid KRW 200 million to the Defendant B as business funds in March 2008, where Defendant A stated that “B would be an unfortunatee if he/she becomes aware of the right to receive the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment to the