The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance against Defendant A shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the judgment of the court of first instance (Defendant A and Prosecutor), there was no deception of the victim T as to the facts charged of mistake of facts (Defendant A and Prosecutor), and despite the absence of the intent to commit fraud, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable and unfair.

B. As to the judgment of the court below of the second instance (defendant A), Defendant A and Defendant B conspired to mistake of facts and commit fraud against the victim N, and Defendant A did not have participated in such fraud, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year, three months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) Although Defendant B had Defendant E use his bank account, there was no fact that he participated in the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting Defendant B of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. 1) With respect to Defendant A, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the first instance judgment and the second instance judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, according to the decision of consolidation as to each of the above cases appealed, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the first and the judgment of the second instance can no longer be maintained. Despite the existence of the above reasons for ex officio reversal, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined. 2) The judgment on the grounds for misunderstanding of facts by Defendant A is significant with Defendant A in the part of the judgment of the first instance.