All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The defendant A does not show the construction drawings to G directly or through B or in the same words as the facts charged, nor deceiving G by means of the same way as the facts charged.

(2) Although Defendant B made the same remarks as the facts charged to G, Defendant B did not have a criminal intent to acquire money by deceiving G only with the belief and delivery of Defendant A’s horses.

B. Each sentence against the Defendants on the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence not later than the closing of argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made

(2) The lower court directly examined G, I, H, B (Defendant A), and A (Defendant B), etc., and acknowledged the credibility of each of the testimony and testimony of G, H, and H, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. There are special circumstances to deem that the lower court clearly erred in its determination of credibility of each of the above testimony.

It is not considered significantly unfair to maintain its judgment as it is.

Comprehensively taking account of other evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below with respect to each of the above testimony admitted credibility, Defendant A received a subcontract of construction amounting to 300 million won from Taenam case and entrusted it to the O. Defendant B is a management director of the company operated by the O.