The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) As to the fraud related to money for H’s total right contract, Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts) received total amount of KRW 66,30,000 from the damaged party from December 10, 2013 to December 17, 2013, but this is merely merely a receipt of the total amount of KRW 6,603,00 from the damaged party, and there is no fact that Defendant deceiving the injured party as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B) Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant guaranteed that “the custody and purchase of H are all guaranteed by the Nonghyup, and A is a secret personnel of the Government, and is a person who cannot be seen entirely.

There is no fact stating "", and there is no evidence to prove that the victim's statement consistent with this part of the facts charged is not reliable due to lack of consistency, and otherwise, the defendant committed an act identical to this part of the facts charged jointly with the defendant A.

2) As to the fraud related to monthly rent, Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts) did not recommend the victim to rent an office as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, and L is nothing more related to the Defendants, and the victim’s arbitrary office is merely merely merely merely a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) Defendant B (1) did not have any involvement in the fraud described in this part of the facts charged, and the victim’s statement is not reliable because it is not consistent, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant jointly committed an act identical to this part of the facts charged.

(2) This part of the facts charged is that the deception of the Defendants led L, a third party, to receive money on the monthly rent, and L did not have any relation to the Defendants, and there was no intention of unlawful acquisition to acquire L’s property.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (one year of imprisonment) is too vague.