The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, and imprisonment for six months.

However, the defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (A) misunderstanding of facts) The fraud against the victim M was committed by Defendant A (A) as an employee of G, and Defendant A (a) proposed to make an investment in the victim M with the intent to assist Samsung in the finance of G after being suspended from support by the Secretary-General in accordance with the direction of the J, but did not engage in the act of deception as stated in the facts charged, such as that the K in charge of the settlement of accounts for the victim M was referred to as a subsidiary of G, and the project proposal was not made by a drilling, and the project proposal was sufficiently likely to be successful

However, while G did not perform the contract, the project of the K-A-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

B) Defendant A did not engage in deception as stated in the facts charged, such as stating that Defendant A would allow the victim T to give a right-to-face loan or obtain a right-to-face in a loan to the victim T, etc. Although Defendant A borrowed money from the victim T as a business fund, it was used as a business fund, but there was no intention to commit fraud only because it did not pay money because it did not perform its business due to external factors. 2) The punishment (one-year imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely accepting the position of representative director in trust of the possibility of K business, and Defendant B did not deceiving the victim M and did not intend to commit fraud in collusion with Defendant A. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B is too unreasonable.

C. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the misconception of facts as to Defendant A’s fraud against Defendant A’s victim M and on the misconception of facts as to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles.