The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months for fraud against AB of the victim, and the remainder.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The respective types of punishment of the lower court (the crime of fraud against AB by victim: imprisonment with prison labor for four months and imprisonment for one year) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) conspiracys: (1) Defendant A introduced the victim company that Defendant A trades to the Defendant and proceed with all of his identification; (2) the Defendant has conducted the credit card settlement in reliance on the Defendant’s remarks; and (3) even based on N’s testimony by the lower witness N, the Defendant did not hear at all on the Defendant’s “special settlement of aviation rights” and “ditation,” etc.; and (4) solely on the basis of the Defendant’s argument, Defendant A’s deception by deceiving the victim company alone, even if it conforms to the Defendant’s assertion, there was no conspiracy with Defendant A.

B) In light of the witness N’s testimony that “A has already been instructed by his own company to settle airline tickets, and only performed the settlement as ordered,” the victim company cannot be deemed to have committed an act of disposal by mistake. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant conspired with the defendant A to commit the crime of attempted fraud in collusion with the defendant A, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

A’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is very unfavorable to the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant was punished several times by taking advantage of the same method of fraud; and (b) the amount of damage caused by the instant fraud was not significant.

However, each of the facts charged in this case can have been tried simultaneously with each of the crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive.