The judgment of the court below (excluding the part of the compensation order) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and D shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts: The Defendants could have predicted that they borrowed money from the victim under the pretext of maintaining the balance of the bank in order to repay the bonds borrowed from the Defendant B and D’s victim J on May 31, 2007).

(2) In light of the purport that Defendant A expressed that Defendant A would repay the amount borrowed from the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money used for the business of selling in lots (the money borrowed from the victim K on May 31, 2007, February 10, 2008, March 7, 2008, and March 24, 2008).

Defendant

B, D was aware of these circumstances and performed a role as an accomplice by notifying false facts about the success possibility of the sale business.

Therefore, each of the above facts charged is found guilty.

B. The lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendants and the Prosecutor) is too unreasonable.

(E) the above sentence is too unhued and unfair on the contrary.

(2) Judgment ex officio (Defendant D)

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Suwon District Court on June 18, 2009, and the above judgment was finalized on June 19, 2009. On October 11, 2012, Seoul High Court sentenced two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and a crime of fraud at the Seoul High Court on December 7, 2012, which became final and conclusive on December 7, 2012. Since each crime against the defendant whom the court below found the defendant guilty was committed before the final and conclusive date of the above judgment, each of the above crimes and each of the above crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive are in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and at the same time