The judgment below

Among them, the part concerning the crime Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment against Defendant A and the part concerning Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the embezzlement of Defendant A (Embezzlement of misunderstanding of Facts as to embezzlement and fraud), only borrowing money for the instant car with the consent of E who used the instant car by leasing it at the time.

(2) Unlike this part of the facts charged, at the time, E provided a passport as collateral for the purpose of using it for gambling money with the Defendants, and borrowed money, and KRW 30 million transferred from the mother of E was used for gambling as above.

B. Defendant B (1) The lower court rejected the credibility of each of the above Defendant’s statements in I, T, U,C, and Z, which correspond to the Defendant’s changing suit, and instead found Defendant B guilty of embezzlement and fraud on the sole basis of the victim E’s statement without credibility. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. According to the judgment ex officio as to the part concerning the first and second crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A, the above Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year at the Jeonju District Court on October 11, 2012 as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (organization and activity of organization, etc.), and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 19, 2012. As such, the above crimes of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (organization and activity of organization, etc.) for which judgment became final and conclusive and the first and second crimes of the above Defendant in concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be determined after considering equity with the case where judgment is to be rendered simultaneously in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and considering mitigation or exemption of punishment. Since the above measures are omitted with respect to the first and second crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the first and second crimes against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.