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.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and legal principles ① The Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the damaged person as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment below, but the Defendant did not actively borrow it. As such, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud. ② The Defendant is not the borrower with respect to KRW 100 million as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the original instance, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) by Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) On May 23, 2005, the Defendant established and operated G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), a business entity collecting aggregate, in substance. From December 23, 2009, the Defendant had a business relationship with B.

2) On April 30, 201, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the person who suffered damage on the first round of April 201 by means that the victimized person pays KRW 50 million to G on behalf of the injured person, and the aggrieved person paid KRW 50 million on behalf of G on June 30, 201.

3) However, G had been up to KRW 700,000 at the time when the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 50,000 from the damaged party due to difficulties in operation from around 2008, and was accounts of G.

O's 40 million won and 30 million won from her friendship P have deteriorated its financial status to the point of borrowing 30 million won from her friendship P.

4) Since then, on November 8, 201, the Defendant sought additional loans of KRW 100 million from the injured party on November 8, 201, along with G’s insufficient operating expenses, with G, the Defendant and B demanded the aforementioned KRW 50 million and KRW 100 million to be notarized.

5) Accordingly, on November 8, 201, Defendant G, and B, the victim on November 8, 201.