The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 2,000,000 won, Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles and ① the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) had already cancelled the decision of compulsory auction commencement of the above leased object around November 25, 201, prior to the conclusion of the lease agreement with the F 909 (hereinafter “the instant leased object”) located in E at Jeju, the Defendants did not have the duty to notify the victim of the fact that there was a decision of compulsory auction commencement of the above leased object.

② In fact, Defendant A stated that the victim ought to verify the certified copy of the registry, and that the victim was aware of the fact that the compulsory auction of the water for lease purposes was revoked by verifying the certified copy of the registry.

③ Defendant A was merely an accounting employee, and Defendant B did not inform Defendant A of the decision to commence an auction of water for the purpose of lease of this case, and did not instruct Defendant A to enter into a lease agreement. Therefore, the Defendants cannot be deemed as a joint principal offender.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: fine of 2,00,000 won, Defendant B: fine of 7,000,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants.

The Defendants, at the Jeju District Court on January 22, 2015, committed fraud, etc., Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment of one year and six months; Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment of three years and six months; and on May 28, 2015, which became final and conclusive on May 28, 2015. Therefore, the above fraud for which each crime and judgment in the judgment of the court below against the Defendants became final and conclusive is in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal.