The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts about the part of the AR team (2013rd group 2863) (hereinafter referred to as the “AR team leader”), although Defendant A could not be evaluated as the team leader of the AR team, the judgment of the court below that recognized the above Defendant as the team leader of the AR team was erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding facts contrary to the rules of evidence and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime and the degree of participation, the current situation where the Defendant A was faced with, the sentence of imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) of

B. The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment) against the above defendant B is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances leading up to and degree of participation in the crime of this case and the present situation where the defendant B was faced with the above defendant B.

2. Determination:

A. Defendant A1’s assertion of mistake of facts does not constitute an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment if the lower court misleads the facts or made a mistake in the application of statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1180, Jul. 11, 1997; 201Do1415, May 13, 201). As alleged by Defendant A, even though the above Defendant was not the team leader of the “AR Team,” it constitutes a joint principal offense of fraud recognized by the lower judgment, and thus, such mistake does not constitute an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which provides for the conditions of sentencing, belongs to the court’s discretion on the determination of punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1410, Jan. 19, 198; 201Do1415, Oct. 26, 1990).