The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for one year and eight months, respectively.

The court below held.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The reasons for the Defendant’s appeal against Defendant A are as follows: (a) the punishment determined by the court of the original instance (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable; and (b) the reasons for the Prosecutor’s appeal are that the said punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The Defendant’s appeal against Defendant B constitutes fraud in the judgment of the court below 2016 High Order 7456, and the guilty part of occupational breach of trust constitutes a mistake of fact, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the punishment prescribed by the court of the original instance (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The reason for the prosecutor's appeal is that the defendant B's punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Examining the instant case based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake, it is reasonable and acceptable for the court of the lower court to have found Defendant B guilty of fraud in the 2016 senior 7456 case, and occupational breach of trust as stated in its reasoning.

We cannot accept the allegation that there is a mistake of facts affecting the judgment of the court below.

B. We examine whether the sentencing of Defendant A is appropriate with respect to the wrongful assertion of sentencing by both parties against Defendant A.

Defendant

A seems to have led to the confession and reflect of the crime.

However, there is a large amount of money acquired through the victim D through several times, which is a total of KRW 190,4360,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was paid by the defendant due to the recovery of damage, is the principal and KRW 84,855,00,000.D has not been recovered from damage exceeding KRW 80,000,00, and has been subject to incidental damage.

Although the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment several times as a crime of fraud, the criminal liability is very heavy because he/she again committed a serious fraud.

Although considering the age of 39 years of birth and the conditions of inconvenience, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

The sentencing of B is unfair.