The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In the event of misunderstanding of facts (non-existence of criminal intent) or borrowing money from the victims, Defendants 1 and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) that established “G” owned by Defendant B and Defendant A as representative director on December 24, 2004 at the time of borrowing the said money.

(2) The lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as the Defendants were not able to pay money by selling the factory building owned by the Defendant and borrowed money from the victims, and thus, found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, prior to the judgment on the ex officio decision on the grounds of appeal by the amendment of indictment to Defendant B, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment to change the “victim P” as “victim R” pursuant to paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the instant case as to Defendant B’s fraud at the trial of the court below, and this court permitted the above and changed the subject of the judgment by this court. The court below found Defendant B guilty of both the facts charged in the instant case and the remainder of the facts charged (the facts charged in paragraph (3) of the original judgment) against Defendant B as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced Defendant B one punishment. As such, the part on Defendant B in the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B cannot be maintained any more

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, along with Defendant A’s assertion and prosecutor’s assertion about Defendant A.

B. 1 Fraud is established on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts.