The judgment below

The part of the case against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B in 2017 order 1191 shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts (as to the case of the lower court 2017 order 1191), the Defendant did not in collusion with M to deception the victim company.

M If M prepares a prior interest of KRW 25 billion according to the initial promise, the Defendant had the intent and ability to sufficiently prepare KRW 500 billion.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's crime of fraud is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence (the lower court’s order 2017 High Order 327: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and the lower court’s order 2017 High Order 1191: imprisonment with labor for one year and one year and ten months) against an unfair defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1) In fact, Defendant A had a history of misunderstanding that Defendant B had a history.

Although there is a provision of trust convenience, there is no fact that money has been acquired from the victim in collusion with A.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's crime of fraud is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence (4 months of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

(c)

The Prosecutor (Improper Sentencing with Defendant B)’s sentence against Defendant B is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Before determining the grounds for ex officio appeal, the Prosecutor changed the facts charged in the case of the 2017 Highest order 1191 in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A at the trial of the party, along with the previous criminal facts [the sole criminal facts of Defendant A, who is the 1191 Highest order 2017, Defendant A], and added “Article 37 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act” to Defendant B, and “Defendant B was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Southern District Court on September 7, 2017 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 10, 2017.

“A request for permission to amend a bill of indictment was made to add “”, and this court permitted it and changed the subject of the judgment, among the judgment below, the part of the case against Defendant A in the second sentence of 2017 and 1191.