The judgment below

The guilty part of the remainder, excluding the compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a mistake of facts (based on Defendants 1) by mistake of facts (based on fraud), the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, despite the fact that the victim did not commit a dispositive act because the victim did not commit a dispositive act by mistake, the lower court convicted the Defendants. 2) The sentence (based on Defendant A’s imprisonment and June, and Defendant B’s imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Contributory misunderstanding of the legal principle (with respect to the violation of the Commercial Act), the lower court, by narrowly interpreting the principal nature of the crime of provisional payment as prescribed in Article 628 of the Commercial Act, thereby not guilty of this part of the facts charged. It is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower

2. Determination

A. We examine the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, and the Defendants also asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal. However, the lower court held that the Defendants offered promissory notes brought about Defendant B as security because the Defendants attempted to offer their respective houses as security but there was no value of collateral to lend KRW 350 million to the Defendants in the civil litigation related to G, namely, ① the victims refused to lend money to the victims, and thereafter G borrowed money again with the Defendants.” However, according to their respective statements, the Defendants and G demanded that the Defendants, the Defendants, and the victims provided a security for the payment of money to the victims at H Lesc, April 3, 2007.