The judgment below

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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The sentence A (the imprisonment with labor for one year) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not participate in the victim C’s construction with respect to the land as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant land”), and there was no deception in collusion with the defendant A as stated in the facts constituting a crime.

At the time, the bank loan on the land of this case was refused as a result, and it was only impossible to pay the price to the victim C, not to have the ability or intent to make the payment from the beginning.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

In light of the content of the instant crime, the method of fraud, and the scale of the amount of fraud, etc. of A’s judgment on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing, Defendant A’s criminal liability is not less complicated.

However, the defendant A recognized his mistake and reflects his mistake in the trial.

Defendant

A For the first time, the victims agreed with the victim C, E and the first time, and the victims want to have the Defendant A's prior wife.

There is no criminal record for the defendant and there is no record of punishment for the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances, Defendant’s character, conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and criminal records, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat heavy.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is justified.

Defendant

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion that there was no deception as to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in B, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to deceive the victim C as stated in the judgment below.

Defendant

B’s assertions in this part are without merit.

Defendant

A and B.