The judgment below

Of them, the part of not guilty of fraud against the victim E is reversed.

The facts charged of this case.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

There has been no misconception of facts about the Defendants' violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by deceiving the victims of the 30 billion won, such as landscaping stone, etc.

Defendant

On July 30, 2010, Defendant A entered into an agreement with the victim to the effect that “F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) will transfer the mining right of the P Mining Area to the victim D,” and on May 15, 2012, Defendant A agreed on May 15, 2012 between the mining right holder of the P Mining Area and the mining right holder of the P Mining Area to transfer the mining right of the P Mining Area to F.

Defendant

Inasmuch as there was no direct deception against the victim A, fraud shall not be established.

In light of the fact that the victim actually knew that the mining right of the L mine was divided into the P mining area and the O mining area, there is no credibility in the statement that corresponds to the facts charged in this part of the victim.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (the defendant A) by the lower court (the two years of imprisonment and the three years of suspended execution, and the one and half years of suspended execution and the three years of suspended execution against the defendant B) is too unreasonable.

Defendant B, with the knowledge that the mining area in the L mine is divided into two parts, and the mining right in the P mining area mainly sold by a smoke is owned by another person, Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant B, by deceiving the victim D and by deceiving the money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view Defendant B as a conspiracy with Defendant A.

The defendants' victims E.