The judgment below

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

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. The Defendants, the legal couple, did not have the awareness of deceiving victims and the intent of defraudation [a] Defendant B’s “K” under the name of the Defendant B (hereinafter “the instant friendship”).

(2) The court’s appraisal value is 3.20 million won. At the time of receiving each lease deposit from the victims, the Defendants’ obligations were 1.5 billion won in lease deposit against M, which is a mortgagee and a request for auction, and 6.5 billion won in a foreign exchange bank (the maximum bond amount is 9.1 billion won) to the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (the maximum bond amount is 1.71 billion won). The victims and all of the beneficiaries of the right to collateral security (the lien operator) were 3.5 billion won in return of the deposit amount and 1.2 billion won in total, and the Defendants were 1.6 billion won in trust agreement with the victims and 200 million won in return, and the Defendants were 1.6 billion won in trust agreement with the victims and 1.6 billion won in return of the deposit amount was not 1.6 billion won in trust agreement with the victims and 1.6 billion won in return of the loan amount and 1.6 billion won in trust agreement with the victims of the right to collateral security.

Even if all of them were Defendant A’s act, and Defendant B only operated a fishing place at the time of entering into a contract with the victims, and there was no participation in the instant friendship or operation. Therefore, Defendant B, who is only the nominal owner of each lease contract, is liable for the crime of fraud.