The judgment below

Of the above, the part against Defendant B (excluding the dismissed part of the application for compensation) is reversed.

Defendant

B. Imprisonment.

An applicant for the scope of adjudication in this Court shall not file an appeal against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation order (Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings), and the application for compensation order shall be finalized immediately.

The court below dismissed the application for compensation filed by C, which is the applicant for compensation, and confirmed simultaneously with the declaration that the applicant for compensation was not dissatisfied with this part, and thus, the dismissal of the above order for compensation among the judgment below shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the prosecutor (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) could sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B and obtained 500 million won from the victim C, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A, is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Defendant B (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment with prison labor (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

A. On August 22, 2016, Defendant A, along with Defendant B, established I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) to purchase the land for E-public parking lots on condition that he/she constructed an underground parking lot of six-story size and donated it to Non-Ycheon-si (hereinafter “instant project”).

Defendant

A, the overall promotion of the instant project, etc. by entrusting I’s Chairperson, and while inducing investors while managing I’s funds, Defendant B and Defendant B conspiredd to attract investors. Defendant A and Defendant B, in March 2017, lack of operating funds of I during the management of I’s funds, and the pressure on the repayment of personal debts is so severe as to attract investors.

Defendant

A on March 15, 2017, the victim C who was brought by Defendant B at the I's Office of Chairperson on March 15, 2017.