The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months, each of whom shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and three months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (2) A) the victim G lent money to maintain the right to remove services to be received from Defendant A for several personal purposes. Even if the Defendants did not notify the use of the borrowed money as the operating expenses of the partnership while borrowing money as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged, the victim L lent money to the Defendants. Thus, the crime of fraud is not established merely because the Defendants did not simply notify the victim of the true use of the borrowed money.

B) Since February 5, 2016, Defendant B had already been involved in the mistake that Defendant B would be entitled to the right to remove services from Defendant A, the duty of disclosure cannot be recognized by law, and Defendant B did not act as deception against the victim. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of fraud as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, two years of community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable. C. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Article 2(2)) do not state a deception, such as the description of the facts charged, at the time when the Defendants were to borrow money from the victim.

The victim has provided financial support to the defendant A, and then has obtained business profits in the course of the redevelopment association of this case, and only has provided financial support to the defendant A several times.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of fraud as to Defendant C as stated in the facts charged No. 2 is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order is too unlimited.