The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A and the innocent part related to remodeling works, and the accused.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below's punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the defendant is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant A (unfair punishment) has almost little profits acquired by the defendant in this case.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by introducing C to L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”), and introducing A and the victim T only, and even though there was no fact of deceiving the victim T and deceiving the money in collusion with the above defendants, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charges, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable in light of the background and degree of participation by the Defendant in the instant crime, the Defendant agreed with the victim T, etc.

C. Defendant C (1) The actual operation of misunderstanding of facts L was conducted by B, etc., and even though the Defendant was merely a person who conspired with B, etc. as an investor and did not have a criminal intent to commit fraud, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by mistake of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In light of the fact that the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant case did not have little profit and rather suffered considerable damage, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Although Defendant A and Defendant D were fully admitted with respect to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, as stated in the relevant facts charged, the lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the lower court acquitted Defendant A and Defendant D on this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.