The judgment below

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

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months.

Defendant

A. A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts as follows: (a) Defendant A committed a fraud by misrepresenting modern Capitals; (b) Defendant A committed an offense in the instant case, 2015 order 1074 in the original judgment; and (c) the crimes listed in the sequence 3 and 4 of [Attachment 1] of the judgment of the lower court that misrepresented a new Capital is irrelevant to Defendant A.

② The fact that Defendant A received a physical card by deceiving the victims from March 16, 2015 to May 2, 2015, which was 2247 in the judgment of the original court, was never known that the victims acquired money from the victims, and there was no conspiracy to commit the crime.

On March 20, 2015, prior to the commencement of the solicitation date of the head of the Tong, the fraud, such as the computer of the victim CN on 1 to 4 occasions in the annexed list of crimes (5) of the judgment of the court below, is not related to the defendant A.

The Defendant A was not engaged in solicitation of passbooks from March 30, 2015 to April 5, 2015. Thus, each of the crimes listed in the table of crime (4), Nos. 17, 18, 19, and the table of crime (5) in the attached Form (4) of the judgment of the court below is irrelevant to the Defendant A.

㉣ 원 심 판결 별지 범죄 일람표 (4) 의 순번 11∼16 번, 원심 판결 별지 범죄 일람표 (5) 의 순번 5, 6번, 16∼22 번은 피고인 A이 저지른 범죄가 아니다.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

B1) Although Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts is consistent with the participation of Defendant B in the criminal conduct of Bosing, it is difficult to find out how the list of offenses listed in the [Attachment] as indicated in the judgment below was prepared, and Defendant B was not aware of any crime committed by misrepresenting another financial institution, not Hyundai Capital, at all. Thus, each of the offenses listed in the [Attachment] as indicated in the judgment below, cannot be recognized as related to Defendant B.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too large.