Of the judgment of the first instance, the part on Defendant B is reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) or misunderstanding of the legal principles, ① Defendant A merely introduced Defendant B to the victim at the request of the victim H, and there was no conspiracy between Defendant B and I to acquire 10,000 shares.

② Defendant A received not “security” for 10,000 shares granted by the injured party, but “price” for purchasing 50,000 shares of the said shares.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (eight months of imprisonment) for the sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of the fact, ① Defendant B purchased the actual shares of 50,000 shares through R, and the victim confirmed the purchase price of shares (the stock purchase report) and thus did not commit deception.

② Taking into account the details of the purchase of shares by Defendant A’s proposal, the details of the agreement on shares between the victim and the victim, the time of receipt of shares, the process of use of shares, etc., the Defendant B was not a “security” for 10,000 shares issued by the victim, but a “price” for purchase of shares of 50,000 shares.

Therefore, there was no intention to commit fraud in acquiring and disposing of the above 10,000 shares.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (eight months of imprisonment) for the sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

Each type of punishment (for the defendants, 8 months of imprisonment) sentenced by the first instance court (unfair sentencing) is unfair because it is too unhutiled.

2. Determination on the grounds for each appeal by the defendant A and the prosecutor against the defendant A

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A may fully recognize the fact that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B and acquired 10,000 shares of the victim.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles is accepted.