The judgment below

The guilty portion against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A, Defendant B, in one and half years of imprisonment, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the joint criminal conduct under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant did not have conspireded with A, C, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victims, and the victims, regardless of whether the Defendant was the Defendant, entered into a contract with A, C, to be employed in “LHalula” or to start a beauty room in Canada or to start a beauty room, and only the Defendant was employed for the crime committed by deceiving A and C.

(2) The criminal facts of the lower judgment are the sole criminal conduct under paragraph (3).

On the part of the fraud, the defendant only explained that it would assist the victims in obtaining employment and visa when he/she was issued an international certificate of Y, and the actual international certificate of Canadian government will assist the victims in obtaining qualification verification and employment visa approval, and the victims have applied for international certificate at their own choice.

③ The above single criminal conduct B.

With respect to the attempted fraud part of the port, the Defendant did not have the intent to obtain money from the victim R in terms of the cost of the virtual exhibition, and the statement between the victim and the Z shall be made by mistake, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged, and even if the Defendant is guilty, the said attempted fraud part shall be incorporated into the number of pages No. 11 of the crime list No. 11 of the crime committed.

④ The foregoing single criminal conduct is in line with each other.

With respect to the violation of the Employment Security Act, the Defendant provided an opportunity to view employment test instead of having provided an occupation job placement service, and thus, does not constitute a "job placement service" that mediates the establishment of an employment contract under the Employment Security Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and Defendant B: 10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. The case of the Defendants’ ex officio destruction due to changes in indictment.