All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant B did not have a criminal intent to obtain fraud, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Improper sentencing 1) Each sentence (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, Defendant B: 2 months of imprisonment) that the court below sentenced the Defendants to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2) The above types of punishment, which the court below decided against the Defendants, are too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e.,: (a) Defendant A, upon the request of an investigative agency to purchase a heavy truck from the injured party in around 2016, conspired to obtain part of the purchase price for Defendant B and the purchase price for Defendant B, thereby preparing for the heavy truck himself/herself; (b) Defendant B had the victim obtain a loan from a financial institution; and (c) had the victim prepare documents necessary for the loan; while the actual purchase price of the truck was KRW 12 million, the actual purchase price of the truck was KRW 15 million for the victim, by falsely notifying the victim of the difference as the purchase price for the truck.

The statement (Evidence Records 135-138 pages), 2. Defendant A was also aware of the fact that Defendant B was present in the court of original trial and falsely informed the victim of the purchase price of the truck as above.

The statement (75 to 80 pages of the trial record) and (3) Defendant B, along with Defendant A, had the investigative agency by deceiving the victim, and had the victim receive the difference of the purchase price. The victim did not talk about the actual purchase price, and had the victim obtain a loan of KRW 15 million more than the actual purchase price, and then deducted the difference between the truck purchase price and KRW 3 million.5 million.