1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of the facts) did not have conspired with the joint Defendant B and C, and actually had the intent to purchase the motor vehicles indicated in the judgment from the victim G, and thus there was no intention to commit fraud or to acquire unlawful acquisition.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C (unfair sentencing) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A

A. Although the appellate court’s determination on the lower court did not have a new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, when it intends to re-examine the first instance judgment after re-evaluation of the first instance judgment, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. Furthermore, without such exceptional circumstance, the lower court’s determination on the facts of the first instance judgment may not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). No objective reason exists that may affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the first instance trial based on the foregoing legal doctrine, and it does not appear that the lower court’s maintenance of the judgment is considerably unfair when considering the evidence duly investigated and the content of the lower court’s reasoning compared with the evidence duly examined.

except that the following judgments shall be added:

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant may also have the intent to commit fraud and to obtain unlawful acquisition.

1) The Defendant’s joint Defendants received vehicle charges from the victim G, as stated in the facts charged.