The judgment below

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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the following point of view, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles, and Defendant B (a) received five promissory notes (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) from the president of the victimized Company in order to promote the discount of bill in order to prevent the final default of payment by the Victim K (hereinafter “victim”) according to the direction of Defendant A, but did not deceiving the victimized Company as if it obtained the approval of the discount of bill at the head office of the Korean bank without the intention of carrying out the discount of bill from the beginning, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation of the bill. Even if Defendant B deceptioned the victimized Company, the victimized Company did not have any intention to receive the discount of bill at the time of default, and thus there was no causal link between the said deception and the act of disposal.

B) The bill of this case, which Defendant B received from the victimized company, is forged or altered, or a part of the bill of this case cannot be viewed as 500 million won or more since it constitutes a financing bill, and thus, the objective value of the bill is not less than 500 million won. Thus, even if the bill of this case

Article 3(1) cannot be applied. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) on the assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (defluence of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to Defendant A) committed an incomplete crime in the course of obtaining the bill of this case in collusion with Defendant B under the pretext that the last defaulted company would cause the discount of the bill. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.