Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

B The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the facts-finding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part against Defendant A) are sufficiently recognized that Defendant A committed the instant crime in collusion with Defendant A’s employees who committed the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty of aiding and abetting the crime of fraud and found Defendant A not guilty of the grounds for the joint principal offense is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (or against the Defendant) is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

In full view of the circumstances indicated in the judgment below regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, conspiredd Defendant A with the employees of Bosing and committing the crime of this case implicitly and objectively.

It was insufficient to view that there was a functional control over the performance of one's own intent by using the above assistant's act, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and the records of this case, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

Defendant

The lower court determined the Defendants’ punishment by taking into account the circumstances indicated in the judgment of the lower court on the grounds of the sentencing in B and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing. It is reasonable to respect the lower court’s judgment in this case where no particular change in the sentencing conditions is found.

In addition, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant B is too excessive even when comprehensively taking account of various sentencing conditions shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, environment, and motive and background of the crime.