The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants did not have any criminal intent to acquire money because they performed a role for several years as a domestic partner of M-Large Project Projects promoted by the P Chairperson, and actually promoted the inducement of foreign capital.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence on the assertion of mistake of facts, it is acknowledged that the defendants received a letter of intent to grant a loan from the head of Australia CompanyF while promoting foreign capital inducement, and did not have to attract foreign capital in a short period because it failed to meet the conditions required to prepare a regular loan contract, such as securing a site for business, and that the defendants borrowed money in a way that would allow the representative of the victim company to pay 40 million won in a short period of time, even though he was unable to repay 40 million won in a short period of time. Thus, the defendants can be found to have failed to pay her money clearly after the month.

The Defendants’ assertion of factual mistake is without merit.

B. (1) Determination on the unfair argument of sentencing (1) The judgment of the court below is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered to be considered. It is so unfair that the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant did not have any record of punishment in addition to twice due to drinking, driving of alcohol, violation of the Labor Standards Act; and (c)

Defendant

A's unfair argument of sentencing is justified.

(2) Defendant B was sentenced to punishment, including imprisonment, for a crime of the same kind; on the other hand, the damage recovery was made late and the injured person does not want the punishment of the Defendant; and simultaneously was sentenced to the violation of the Labor Standards Act as stated in the judgment.