The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) asserted that, as the counsel’s written opinion on October 27, 2016, the lower court’s sentence is excessive as the grounds for appeal, the Defendants asserted as the grounds for appeal. However, this does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal since the Defendants’ new assertion that was filed subsequent to the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal, does not constitute a legitimate grounds for appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234 delivered on September 22, 1998). A.

The Defendants borrowed money from the victims for the purpose of supporting the Defendants, and actually used the borrowed money for the purpose of supporting the funds.

However, the opening of the business is delayed more than the expected one, and only it is not repaid within the time limit as agreed by the victim.

Therefore, the Defendants did not deceiving the victims and did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation to the Defendants.

(B) the accused.

A person who borrows and uses money from a victim is not the defendant B, but the defendant A, the defendant B did not agree to obtain money from the defendant A and the victim, and there is no fact that he/she participated in deception.

(Defendant B) 2. Determination of mistake of fact

(a) the preceding 1.1-a.

The Defendants asserted that there was no scope of deceptionation in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the said assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the reasons cited by the court below, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of fraud against the defendants is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

The Defendants’ assertion of mistake is without merit.

1 The Defendants used most of the funds borrowed from the victim as Defendant B’s personal rehabilitation costs and the Defendants’ personal debt repayment.

On this issue, the defendant A.