The judgment below

Of the above, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s assertion (1) and misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B merely belonged to AF (one name “AG”) and did not deceiving H through Defendant A.

The exchange of the check in front is also subject to the request of the AF, and the defendant B did not know that the check in front corresponds to criminal proceeds.

In addition, Defendant B did not receive money from Y as working expenses related to loans.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of committing a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), a violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, and a part of fraud.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant A, who received the check from Defendant A, only for the purpose of proving that Defendant A had sufficient purchase funds for his bid price, could receive the check in a certain manner, it constitutes the use of the check for purposes other than the purpose of strictly limited purposes, as long as he delivered the check in advance with the purchase price for his bid price to Defendant B, and even if the intention of illegal acquisition may be recognized, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) which is an ancillary charge against Defendant A by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misleading facts.

(c)

Although it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B, by deceiving the victim Y by deceiving Defendant B, obtained money under the pretext of job placement cost and non-fund storage cost, the court below acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged by misconception of the fact.

(2) The lower court’s improper sentencing unfair is so unfair that the above-mentioned sentence, which the Defendant B acted against, is too uneased.

2. The lower court’s judgment on the instant court.