The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ) Defendant A merely knew that it was engaged in the collection business at a lending company, but was unaware of the fact that it remitted the amount of damage from singishing, so it cannot be recognized as willful negligence of fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of fraud is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Even if the intention of fraud is recognized against Defendant A, it is only an aiding and abetting crime, and cannot be viewed as a co-principal. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized Defendant A as a co-principal by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.) Of the crime sight table attached to the judgment of the court below, the part of KRW 20 million among the Nos. 1 through 9, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19 and No. 12 in the above crime sight table is the sole principal offense against Defendant A, and 10, 11 was committed during the period of education from Defendant A and thus, Defendant A did not participate

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as to Defendant A’s whole guilty of the crime list attached to the judgment below.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. The sentence of Defendant B, C, and D (Defendant B: imprisonment of three years, confiscation, Defendant C: imprisonment of two years and six months, Defendant D: imprisonment of two years and six months, and confiscation of two years, respectively.

C. Each sentence imposed on Defendant A, C, and D by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated by the evidence, i.e., Defendant A was aware that he/she was engaged in the business of collecting money from the lending enterprise.