The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable because Defendant A (unfair form of punishment) was too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) did not borrow money from the victim by deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the monetary transaction relationship of this case is merely a mere non-performance of civil liability.

2. Determination

A. In the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment in U dan located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “Seoul Northern-gu G” among the facts charged against the Defendants at the trial of the court, and since this court permitted changes in the subject of the trial, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant B's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. In full view of the objective circumstances, such as the relationship between the Defendants and the victim, the Defendants’ speech and behavior at the time of the instant case, the circumstances before and after the Defendants’ property status, etc. in light of the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the victim I, as stated in the judgment of the court below, and received KRW 21.9 million from the victim as borrowed money, can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

3. The lower court’s decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal, and is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts of the crime and the evidence recognized by the court is "H located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government" among the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below.