The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1, an misunderstanding of facts, Defendant A, an attorney-at-law of misunderstanding of facts, provided a loan to a person who seeks a loan and received fees. As such, Defendant A entered into a contract as if he/she had a consulting fee for raising funds of Defendant A with respect to such fees and agreed to pay a certain amount of money in return. Accordingly, S and Defendant B arranged to conclude a funding contract with Defendant A after introducing Defendant A to the person who seeks the loan as a financing entity and preparing detailed terms and conditions of the contract. Defendant A received and delivered the agreed amount to be paid in advance as indicated in the instant facts charged, as instructed by S, at six times as stated in the instant facts charged. However, Defendant A had no capacity to raise funds from the beginning, and planned to receive the agreed amount after signing a funding contract with Defendant A under the name of Defendant A by deceiving Defendant A, and Defendant A was able to raise funds in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract at the time of receiving the funds as above, and thus, there was no unfair sentencing decision.

B. Defendant B1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud of L, M, and N among the facts charged in the instant case) is one of the victims who suffered losses by concluding a financing contract with Defendant A through S and paying the agreed money. Defendant A was merely introducing L, M, and N to the party who entered into a financing contract, but did not participate in acquiring money as stated in this part of the facts charged in collusion with Defendant A. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c).