The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, although Defendant A sent several letters to the victim G, it is difficult to view the contents of the text as a threat of harm to the extent that it may cause fears to the victim G, and even if the victim A did not intend to commit a crime of intimidation, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of the instant intimidation by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) Although Defendant A did not have inflicted an injury on the victim G, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged of the instant injury by misunderstanding the facts.

C) The lower court convicted Defendant A of each of the charges of attempted fraud of this case on the ground that Defendant A had no intention to commit fraud, on the following grounds: (a) the claim of KRW 220 million participating in the distribution procedure was not false; (b) there was a settlement issue between the Defendants and H; and (c) Defendant A thought that the claim of KRW 10 million, which was received from theO, was repaid for the claim of KRW 50 million; and (b) Defendant A had no intention to commit fraud.

2) The sentence of the first sentence (10 months of imprisonment) and the sentence of the second sentence (1 year of imprisonment) by the lower court against Defendant A who is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The claim of KRW 220 million, which participated in the distribution procedure of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, is not false, but remains a settlement issue between the Defendants and H, and Defendant B did not have any intent to commit fraud. Thus, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the charge of attempted fraud of this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting Defendant B of the charge.

2) The sentence of the second sentence against Defendant B, which is unfair in sentencing (one year of a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The sentence of the second sentence against the Defendant A by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

Defendant

A. A.