The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. According to the evidence of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B and C to obtain money from the victims is recognized.

Even if there is no domestic conspiracy relation, the fact that the defendant A aided the fraud of the defendant B and C is recognized at least.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all Defendant A of the primary facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B and C (one and half years of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, ten months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing on Defendant B prior to examining the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing.

According to the records, Defendant B was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud and two years of suspension of the execution of the above imprisonment at the Daejeon District Court on November 7, 2013, and the above judgment was appealed by the Defendant, but the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed on June 25, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 3, 2014. As such, the crime of fraud for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of fraud in consideration of equity with the case where it is to be judged at the same time in accordance with the former part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the prosecutor against Defendant A

A. On October 2009, the Defendant, as the president of the Partnership E, of the primary facts charged as to the primary facts charged, was recruited as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, and around October 2009, at E offices located in the K of Sejong Special Self-Governing City, BC and the victim FL will place the order as “E Association President A” and the representative director E.