The judgment below

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

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the prosecutor - misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A), the role borne by Defendant A in relation to the victim's investigation agency, the result of the mobile analysis of Defendant A's mobile phone, etc., Defendant A can be acknowledged that Defendant A conspired with Defendant C and B with intent to commit the crime of fraud and committed the crime of fraud of this case in a successive manner. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A of the charge of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of judgment

B. Defendant B and C - Each sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B and C (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and Defendant C: three years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant A, Defendant B, and C of the instant facts charged against Defendant A: (a) purchased merchandise coupons in a large quantity on a merchandise coupon and sold them in a merchandise coupon exchange; (b) recruited investors; (c) recruited investors; (d) recruited merchandise coupons bought by an investor in the old room by settling accounts at the money exchange; and (e) recruited investors to flee by taking them away; and (e) for this purpose, Defendant C took overall control of the whole process of the instant crime, such as taking a disguised merchandise exchange office and finding out the place of purchase of merchandise coupons; (c) induced Defendant A to purchase merchandise coupons by inviting investors to purchase merchandise coupons; and (d) Defendant B took part in the role of disposing of the merchandise coupons received in the money exchange exchange; and (e) taking part in the role of disposing of the merchandise coupons by taking care of the amount deducted.

Accordingly, on December 2013, Defendant A recommended the victim F to make an investment in the merchandise coupon exchange business, which was known to the police officer through the line of society.

However, in fact, when Defendant B received gift certificates from the victim in disguise of money exchange, the Defendants attempted to arbitrarily exchange them after leaving them back.