The judgment below

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

Defendant

A. The Prosecutor’s Defendant B

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A’s victim K was engaged in the reduction of “H” as the same in the name of another company. The term “stock company” is omitted. The term “stock company” is a complex-type apartment house, complex-type multi-household house, or studio-type house (Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Housing Act and Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act) that is built in an urban area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act in order to secure exclusive right to sell in lots with a well-known knowledge of the financial situation of the company and the progress of the project. The victim also actively participated in the process of financing and the procedure of granting permission. The victim was holding adequate assets at the time of the implementation of the said new construction, and actually concluded a contract with the trust company, etc. for the implementation of the construction project. At the time of granting funds by the victim, the victim was well aware of the intent or ability of the Defendant to perform the new construction of this case to the public prosecutor and the public prosecutor’s employee.

According to these circumstances, Defendant B could be seen as deceiving the victim in collusion with A rather than simply receiving A’s instructions.

B. The sentencing of Defendant A (the probation three years in prison and six months in prison) by the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of Defendant A (the probation three years in prison and six months in prison) is too unjustifiable.

2. The summary of the facts charged is Defendant A’s representative director of H in the fourth floor G of the Gunsan City for the purpose of real estate development, construction business, etc.

Defendant

B serves as the head of H headquarters from January 201.