The judgment below

Among the parts on Defendant B, the order for compensation, including provisional execution, shall be issued.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts as stated in the instant facts charged, Defendant A did not deceiving the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) as stated in the instant facts charged, and only received 4 million won as the price after selling the shares to the victim and thereby did not intend to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence that the court below sentenced to the above defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts as stated in the instant facts charged, Defendant B did not deceiving the victim in collusion with Defendant A, and the amount of KRW 4 million remitted by Defendant A from the injured party is limited to the normal share transaction amount. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of fraud against the above Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the court below to the above defendant (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the trial before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, prior to the judgment on the ex officio judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on July 16, 2015 and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud.

9. 24. It can be recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive. As such, since the crime for which judgment became final and the crime of this case are concurrent crimes with the crime of this case after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment is determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment by taking account of equity and equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B, other than compensation order, cannot be maintained any

However, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.