[Defendant B] The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant (excluding the dismissed part of the application for compensation) is reversed.

Defendant .

The court below rejected the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the above application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately. Thus, the part dismissing the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant B (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

A In fact, although the Defendant was not involved in the crime of aiding and abetting B’s fraud, the lower court recognized the Defendant as an aiding and abetting offender, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Since functional control is sufficiently recognized through the intent to jointly process the instant fraud and the Defendant’s inherent contribution to the instant fraud between the Defendant and B, the Defendant is not merely an assistant but also a joint principal offender.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized only the defendant as an aiding and abetting offender and rendered a not-guilty verdict on the joint principal offender. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendants is too unfortunate and unfair.

Judgment

The lower court’s determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the part on Defendant A’s acquittal of the grounds), comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, which the Defendant participated as a joint principal offender through a functional control with the intent to jointly process the instant fraud.

The reason why it is difficult to conclude is.