The judgment below

Of the facts charged against Defendant A and the facts charged against Defendant B, fraud regarding the fall project against Defendant B (the court below's judgment).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A (guilty part of the lower judgment) fraud, Defendant B’s liability for receiving an investment from the victims was recognized during the period from June 18, 2008 to the point of view, but only received a total of KRW 37 million, and did not know that Defendant B received an amount of KRW 152 million, which is the same as the facts charged, from the victims.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B (1) fraud against the victim S, the victim did not receive money by deceiving or deceiving the victim, since the victim provided money to the defendant without any condition or while engaging in bond business.

(2) The lower court’s respective punishment [the imprisonment with prison labor for October, 2015, the imprisonment for the first time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time for the second time:

2. Determination

A. Circumstances acknowledged by Defendant A(1) as evidence of determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, that is, Defendant A would pay 10% of the principal and 10% of the profit in the face of investment by gathering 20% profits from the business of import of abortion to Defendant B who operates the System.

Defendant B, based on this, recruited investors, Defendant A prepared a direct investment agreement with some investors (victim X), and Defendant A issued a cash custody certificate to inform the Incheon Port and the customer, explain the business, and pay “the principal and 10% dividend within 10 days” after the investment (victim E) and promised to return the investment amount (victim E). Defendant D’s illegal import business operated by Defendant A was in a situation where the price of the decline was closed and the amount was not properly collected from the selling place. Defendant A did not have the ability to pay the agreed dividend to the investors because there was no surplus funds within the company.