The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

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

Defendant

A.

Defendant A (as to the joint crime by the Defendants of paragraph (2) of the facts charged in this case), Defendant A did not have access to the victim for the purpose of acquiring money through the process of marriage from the beginning of the marriage, and introduced the victim to Defendant B with the belief of Defendant B that he may purchase the benz car by means of deception, and there was no conspiracy of fraud with Defendant B or deception of the victim, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

Defendant

B Taking into account the fact that Defendant B was in a friendly relationship between K and 2 years, the fact that Defendant B was unaware of the victim, did not have the intention of defraudation, and there was no fact of conspiracy with Defendant A.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

B’s ex officio determination on Defendant B’s grounds for appeal on June 9, 2017, the record reveals that Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months at the District Government District Court on August 18, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 18, 2017. As such, between the above crime of fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the instant crime of fraud and the instant case at the Seoul Central District Court 2014 High Court 615 decided August 16, 2016, which was sentenced on August 16, 2016, and the final and conclusive crime of fraud pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, should be sentenced in consideration of equity and cases where the judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the part on Defendant B among the judgment below cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.