Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of conviction against Defendant A (including the part of innocence, excluding the part of the compensation order) and the part of the judgment.

1. The first instance court acquitted Defendants A and B on the violation of the laws and frauds by the attorneys-at-law in relation to the fraud complaint case against Q Q Q, among the facts charged in the case of Defendants A and B, 2012 high 1450, and acquitted on the part of them on the grounds that the attorneys-at-law in relation to the case of attempted murder and attempted murder were not guilty on the part of them, and the prosecutor did not appeal this part.

Therefore, the part not guilty is finalized, and the part not guilty for the above reason is remanded to the trial of the party together with the remaining part which was found guilty by an indivisible principle of appeal, but has already been exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties.

Therefore, the conclusion of innocence of the first instance judgment on this part shall be followed, and it shall not be judged separately in the case of the party.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s mistake of fact: Violation of the Act on Defense due to the receipt of money and valuables from U for solicitation [No. 1’s 2012 high Gohap 1356] Defendant received KRW 30 million from U on February 20, 2008 as the cost of managing a charnel site, not as the cost of street funds, and U testified testified to the same effect on the third public trial date of the lower court.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by reliance on U’s testimony reversed by C’s death.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a prison term of four years, additional collection charges of forty million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B asserted that the evidence, which served as the basis for the judgment of conviction by the lower court, was illegally collected in the statement of reasons for appeal. However, Defendant B explicitly withdrawn the above argument on the first trial date ( February 29, 2016), and even if examining ex officio, it is determined that there was no illegality in the procedure of collecting evidence as alleged by the Defendant.

The sentence of the lower court (the 2012 High 1450 High 201 High 1450 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 201 High 200