The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six years and for three years, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each punishment sentenced by the court of first instance and the court of second instance to Defendant A (the imprisonment of the court of first instance: the imprisonment of the court of second instance; the imprisonment of the court of second instance; the imprisonment of the court of second instance) is too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant B was merely an aiding and abetting offender for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) under Article 1 of the judgment of the court below, Defendant B of the judgment of the court below was erroneous in finding Defendant B as a joint principal offender by misunderstanding the facts. (B) Defendant B of the judgment of the court of first instance did not participate in the crime listed in Article 6 and 7 among the fraudulent crimes listed in Article 2 of the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court of second instance, and even though the crime listed in paragraphs 1 through 5 is merely an aiding and abetting, the court below erred in finding Defendant B as a joint principal offender who was involved in the crime listed in paragraphs 1 through 7 of the judgment of the court of second instance by misunderstanding the facts. (2) The court of second instance and the judgment of the court of second instance which judged that Defendant B was a joint principal offender who was involved in the crime listed in paragraphs 1 through 7 of the above judgment of the court of second instance.

C. The Prosecutor’s 2nd sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) declared by the second instance court to the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor ex officio, the decision was made by examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, and the decision was made to concurrently examine the 2014No617 cases, a party member who is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the 2014No617 cases, a party member who is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance against the judgment of the court of second instance. Each of the offenses in the judgment of the court of first and second instance is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant B's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.