The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant B) 1 only provided that the Defendant introduced the victim V and Y to A, and did not conspired to commit fraud against A and the said victims. In addition, the Defendant did not know about the agreement to sell the victim AC, AJ, and AK that C introduced to A, and did not commit deception against the said victims, and thus did not participate in fraud against the said victims. (2) The instant fraud is related to the crime of fraud and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the judgment of the court below which became final and conclusive, and thus, the judgment of acquittal of the instant fraud should be pronounced.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, Defendant B, and Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and one year and one year) against the Defendants is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B

A. The Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court, on the argument that the Defendant had not recruited or participated in the instant fraud crime.

In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant, in collusion with A, could recognize the fact of deceiving the victim V andY of the instant case under the pretext of sale price, etc., and as long as the Defendant participated in the fraud crime against the said victims in collusion with A, the lower court held that, as long as the Defendant participated in the crime against the victims of the remaining victims introduced by C, the Defendant was liable for all the crimes as joint principal offenders even if he/she participated in or contributed to other crimes than those committed against the victims directly introduced by C.

Examining the above judgment of the court below by comparison of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just.