The judgment below

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

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1) Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s sentence (7 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) is true (each part of the lower judgment’s judgment’s fraud) (the part of the lower judgment) and there was no intent to commit deception or fraud with respect to each fraud against the Defendant W Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) on June 14, 201 and July 8, 2011.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged has erred by mistake.

B) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In collusion with Defendant A’s mistake of fact (the fraud committed on June 14, 2011, and July 8, 2011, and Defendant C (the fraud committed on June 14, 201)) and Defendant C (the fraud committed on June 14, 2011), Defendant A and C acquired a total of KRW 100 million from the victimized Company on June 14, 2011 (the total amount of KRW 50 million in the name of the sale deposit and KRW 50 million in the name of the introduction fee), and Defendant A acquired a KRW 100 million in the name of the borrowed money in collusion with Party B on July 8, 2011.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A not guilty and acquitted Defendant C of this part of the facts charged against Defendant A. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence against Defendant A and B, which is unfair in sentencing, is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the intent of deception and deception of each fraud is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances as to the fraud portion on June 14, 201, Defendant B, at the time of the instant sales agency contract, did not have the right to sell the second business to S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) or P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”) and thus, cannot be granted the right to sell the second business on behalf of the victimized company.